Are carriers responsible for the loss of value a third party's vehicle sustains after an accident caused by a policyholder?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments over whether state law prohibits UM/UIM policies from excluding coverage for vehicles a policyholder regularly uses but does not own or insure.

The majority wrote that the dissenting judges' determination 'would eviscerate the entire [Medical Marijuana Act].'

"For a verdict to be 10 times the policy limits, that is just completely unacceptable," said Pansini Law Group managing partner Michael Pansini.

The ruling is a win for insurance companies after the state appellate judges rejected a challenge to an auto insurer's "limit of protection" clause.

"In order to hold in the manner in which you're arguing we would have to read 'purchase' to mean any change in coverage," said Justice Christine Donohue, who sits on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court bench.

The appeals court asserted its position on an issue concerning the regular use exclusion in auto policies set for argument before the state Supreme Court.

A workers' compensation judge's decision may indicate an opening for hard-to-prove claims based on psychological injury.