Coverage Analysis & Strategy for Plaintiffs: Quilici v. Pelosi

When plaintiffs’ counsel is presented with a challenging coverage issue, they rely on Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP to provide clear advice on how to resolve the matter.  In Quilici v. Pelosi, plaintiff’s counsel was presented with just that kind of issue when an insurance carrier denied coverage in an automobile wrongful death action because the vehicle the defendant was driving was allegedly not a covered “non-owed car.”   Pillsbury & Coleman attorneys investigated the facts, analyzed coverage under the policy, and assisted in preparing the policy limits demand which was ultimately accepted by the insurance carrier.

The defendant, a minor, was driving his father’s vehicle at the time of the accident.  Defendant was splitting time living with his father and mother were divorced.  While the father’s insurance carrier agreed to provide coverage for the accident, his mother’s auto insurance carrier denied coverage claiming that the vehicle was not covered as a “non-owed car.”  That provision, however, has strict limitations.  It only precludes coverage for long-term car rentals or car borrowers who have used the vehicle each and every day for 31-consecutive days.  Vehicles like the one borrowed from defendant’s father, which are used intermittently, are covered.

After analyzing the relevant case law, we concluded that the insurance carrier’s denial of coverage was wrong.  We then helped prepare a policy limits demand that accounted for all applicable policies, including the mother’s auto policy which had denied coverage.  Shortly thereafter, the case settled for the full policy limits.  Pillsbury & Coleman’s managing partner, Ryan Opgenorth, handled this coverage matter on behalf of plaintiff.

Read More Case Summaries