6.6 Regular Use Exclusion

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Standard automobile liability policies provide coverage for owned and listed vehicles. These policies also typically cover the insured and family members while driving certain "non-owned" vehicles, provided those vehicles were not furnished for the "regular use" of either the named insured or any relative.

Excluding coverage for "regular use" vehicles is accomplished primarily by limiting the definition of "non-owned automobile,"^[103] although some policies use an express exclusion.^[104] When the restriction is accomplished through definition, the policy will normally provide coverage for use of non-owned vehicles-so-called "drive other cars" clause-while limiting the definitional scope of non-owned vehicles as follows: "Non-owned automobile means an automobile not owned by or regularly or frequently used by the named insured or any resident of the same household, other than a substitute vehicle." The purpose of this restriction "is to cover the occasional or incidental use of other cars without the payment of an additional premium, but concomitantly, to exclude habitual use of other cars, which would increase the insurer's risk without a corresponding increase in premium."^[105]

In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hudson,^[106] the court defined the phrase "regular use" as follows:

The phrase "regular use" is undefined in the policy. However, the term denotes continuous use; uninterrupted normal use for all purposes; without limitation as to use; and customary use as opposed to occasional use or special use.^[107]

Thus, according to the Hudson court, "regular use" denotes continuous, uninterrupted possession of the vehicle with the privilege and opportunity of its use at such times and for such purposes as the driver wished.

The phrase "regular use" depends for its meaning upon the particular facts of each case and is susceptible to "no hard and fast rule."^[108] The "question of 'regular use' is not a question of the quantum of use of the automobile, but whether the vehicle is actually or potentially used."^[109] Accessibility to other means of transportation does not, in itself, establish "irregular use."

Occasional or special use does not amount to "regular use." The facts of the particular case must be considered to determine whether the use of a vehicle was intended to be for an "unusual circumstance . . . requir[ing] immediate use of the car"^[110] or "whether the vehicle was intended to be used or was available for use on a routine basis."^[111]

An illustrative case is Farmers Insurance Co. v. Zumstein,^[112] which involved an automobile liability policy insuring a 1969 Ford Mustang owned by Robert Zumstein. Mr. Zumstein's son, John, was also named under the policy. John lived with his parents and was employed by Mr. Kissam, who operated a janitorial service out of his home. Kissam owned several vehicles, including a Dodge pickup truck. John was driving this pickup when he had a motor vehicle accident. When first employed by Zumstein, John was responsible for his own transportation and for transporting cleaning supplies to each job location. John used his parents' Mustang for his job until it broke down. Kissam then allowed John to use the pickup for...