§ 1718. Exclusion from benefits.
(a) General rule.--An insurer shall exclude from benefits any insured, or his personal representative,
under a policy enumerated in section 1711 (relating to required benefits) or 1712
(relating to availability of benefits), when the conduct of the insured contributed
to the injury sustained by the insured in any of the following ways:
(1) While intentionally injuring himself or another or attempting to intentionally injure
himself or another.
(2) While committing a felony.
(3) While seeking to elude lawful apprehension or arrest by a law enforcement official.
(b) Conversion of vehicle.--A person who knowingly converts a motor vehicle is ineligible to receive first party
benefits from any source other than a policy of insurance under which he is an insured
for any injury arising out of the maintenance or use of the converted vehicle.
(c) Named driver exclusion.--An insurer or the first named insured may exclude any person or his personal representative
from benefits under a policy enumerated in section 1711 or 1712 when any of the following
apply:
(1) The person is excluded from coverage while operating a motor vehicle in accordance
with the act of June 5, 1968 (P.L.140, No.78), relating to the writing, cancellation
of or refusal to renew policies of automobile insurance.
(2) The first named insured has requested that the person be excluded from coverage while
operating a motor vehicle. This paragraph shall only apply if the excluded person
is insured on another policy of motor vehicle liability insurance.
(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984; Feb. 7, 1990, P.L.11, No.6, eff.
July 1, 1990)
1990 Amendment. Act 6 amended subsec. (c).
References in Text. The act of June 5, 1968 (P.L.140, No.78), referred to as the Automobile Insurance
Policy Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), was repealed by the act of June 17, 1998,
P.L.464, No.68. The subject matter is now contained in Article XX of the act of May
17, 1921 (P.L.682, No.284), known as The Insurance Company Law of 1921.
Notes of Decisions
Progressive N. Ins. v. Schneck, 813 A.2d 828 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Relying on 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c) (permitting named driver exclusions), the trial court rejected appellants' public policy argument.”
Byoung Suk an v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 113 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 6× “1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that the “named driver only” automobile policy issued to Zainab Walker (“Walker”) does not violate section 1718(c) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c),…”
Omodio v. Aetna Life & Cas., 559 A.2d 570 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Section 1718 of the Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718, specifies the circumstances under which individuals shall be excluded from benefits, and the specified exclusions do not include loading or unloading motor vehicles.”
Henning v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 795 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c). Pursuant to Section 1718(c)(2), it would appear that State Farm could properly deny the uninsured motorist claim of Edward R.”
Rimpa v. Erie Ins. Exch., 590 A.2d 784 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
“While the Financial Responsibility Law does set forth certain exclusions from coverage (75 Pa.C.S. § 1718), the statute does not exclude from coverage any injury arising out of the business of repairing, servicing or maintaining motor vehicles, similar to the exclusionary…”
Hardy Ex Rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 938 A.2d 938 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008).
“[o]ccupying any motor vehicle without the expressed or implied consent of the owner"); 75 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1718(b) ("A person who knowingly converts a motor vehicle is ineligible to receive first party benefits from any source other than a policy of insurance under which he is…”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Keenan, 953 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
“State Farm therefore claims that there is a false conflict and reasons that Pennsylvania’s policy may be impaired by the application of New Jersey law, but that New Jersey’s policy cannot be impaired by the application of Pennsylvania law; rather, New Jersey’s silence is…”
DeBiasi v. Erie Ins. Exch., 37 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 (1997).
“The provision of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act governing “named driver exclusion” is set forth at 75 Pa.C.S. §1718(c). It provides that an insurer or a first named insured may exclude any person from first-party benefits when “(1) The person is excluded from…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gambone (E.D. Pa. 2021).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c)(2). Defendants contend that, pursuant to this provision, Dabbene’s exclusion under Gambone’s Progressive policy for the Cadillac was necessarily dependent on Dabbene’s use of the Cadillac being covered by the State Farm policy.”
Durkin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (M.D. Penn. 2025).
“State Farm further asserts that this exclusion from coverage is permissible under Pennsylvania law, specifically, 75 Pa C.S. §1718(c). (Doc. 13, at 9). Plaintiff disagrees, claiming that there remains a question of material fact as to whether “the Kevin Parkhurst exclusion was…”
Hart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 67 Pa. D. & C.4th 24 (2004).
“On December 31, 2002, this court issued and filed an order and opinion which held that a named driver exclusion authorized by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c), is only applicable to first-party benefits and not to…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1718(b) — 1 case
Hardy Ex Rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 938 A.2d 938 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008).
“[o]ccupying any motor vehicle without the expressed or implied consent of the owner"); 75 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1718(b) ("A person who knowingly converts a motor vehicle is ineligible to receive first party benefits from any source other than a policy of insurance under which he is…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1718(c) — 8 cases
Progressive N. Ins. v. Schneck, 813 A.2d 828 (Pa. 2002).
“Relying on 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c) (permitting named driver exclusions), the trial court rejected appellants' public policy argument.”
Byoung Suk an v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 113 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that the “named driver only” automobile policy issued to Zainab Walker (“Walker”) does not violate section 1718(c) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c),…”
Henning v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 795 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c). Pursuant to Section 1718(c)(2), it would appear that State Farm could properly deny the uninsured motorist claim of Edward R.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Keenan, 953 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
“State Farm therefore claims that there is a false conflict and reasons that Pennsylvania’s policy may be impaired by the application of New Jersey law, but that New Jersey’s policy cannot be impaired by the application of Pennsylvania law; rather, New Jersey’s silence is…”
DeBiasi v. Erie Ins. Exch., 37 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 (1997).
“The provision of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act governing “named driver exclusion” is set forth at 75 Pa.C.S. §1718(c). It provides that an insurer or a first named insured may exclude any person from first-party benefits when “(1) The person is excluded from…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1718(c)(2) — 2 cases
Byoung Suk an v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co., 113 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
“1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that the “named driver only” automobile policy issued to Zainab Walker (“Walker”) does not violate section 1718(c) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c),…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gambone (E.D. Pa. 2021).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1718(c)(2). Defendants contend that, pursuant to this provision, Dabbene’s exclusion under Gambone’s Progressive policy for the Cadillac was necessarily dependent on Dabbene’s use of the Cadillac being covered by the State Farm policy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.