Uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; Policy interpretation; Comparing Duato v Mellon; “Available for regular use”

The court held that plaintiff-insured (Bellestri) was not entitled to UM benefits under his personal vehicle policy with defendant-insurer (Memberselect) for an accident that occurred while he was driving his work vehicle (a Tahoe) because it was “furnished or available for [his] regular use,” and thus, it was not covered under the policy. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s order denying Memberselect summary disposition and remanded for entry of summary disposition in its favor. The court found that the policy language here was similar to that it interpreted in Duato. Neither policy defined “the phrase ‘available for regular use.’ But, relying on the dictionary definition of the phrase” set forth in Duato, the court found it was “clear that the Tahoe was available to Bellestri for regular use. The Tahoe was ‘present or ready for immediate use, accessible, and obtainable,’ to Bellestri because he kept the keys and stored the vehicle in his home garage.” He used it “because he was in the practice of working from the Tahoe for every shift.” His job duties required its use, and his use of it “was regular because it was orderly, methodical, and recurred at normal intervals when he used it to drive to and from every work shift, in addition to working from the Tahoe for the duration of his daily shifts.” The court agreed “that the Tahoe was not available to Bellestri for personal or unfettered use. He was only permitted to use [it] for work purposes. Yet, that fact is not relevant because the policy excluded use of vehicles ‘available for regular use,’ not vehicles for which Bellestri had unlimited or unfettered use. The policy contemplated an exclusion for vehicles ‘owned by or furnished or available for regular use . . . .’”