The defense asserted that the Plaintiff in this matter was operating a rental vehicle which was a replacement for his regularly used company provided vehicle. The Defendant carrier submitted that this is a distinction without difference with respect to the regular use exclusion since the vehicle in question was available for the Plaintiff’s regular use at the time of the accident. The carrier asserted that the fact that the Plaintiff may have used the rental vehicle on only one or two occasions prior to the accident was not material. The fact remained, according to the defense, that the vehicle was furnished and available for the Plaintiff’s regular use.
In contrast, the Plaintiff pointed to the stipulation of the parties confirming that the rental van in question had only been rented for one or two days before the incident and not any extended period of time to qualify as a temporary substitute vehicle under the policy. The Plaintiff also emphasized that he did not operate the same rental van on any prior occasion for any purpose. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the rental van did not fall within the definition of a vehicle furnished for the regular use of the Plaintiff.