## Facts

- In 1980, Brian Stuck drove a 1961 Pontiac owned by Charles Royer and insured under an Ohio Casualty automobile liability policy.
- The Pontiac was paid for and primarily used by Royer’s daughter, Leigh Ann Royer.
- After visiting several bars with friends, Leigh Ann gave Stuck the Pontiac’s keys so he could drive the car to an agreed destination while she rode with friends.
- Stuck did not have a driver’s license and was involved in a collision that led to multiple personal-injury suits naming him as a defendant.
- Ohio Casualty denied liability coverage based on a policy exclusion barring coverage when a person uses the car “without a reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so”; the policy did not define “entitled.”
- Ohio Casualty asserted that “entitled” required both permission to use the car and legal authority to drive (a valid license), so an unlicensed driver could not satisfy the clause.
- Stuck lived with his parents, whose State Farm policy provided no-fault coverage; State Farm defended Stuck but asserted its coverage was excess and sought a declaration that Ohio Casualty provided primary liability coverage.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusion for use “without a reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so” unambiguously bars liability coverage for an unlicensed driver.
2. If the clause is ambiguous, whether it must be construed against the insurer so the exclusion applies only when the driver lacked a reasonable belief of permission to use the vehicle.
3. Whether, under the proper construction, the jury’s finding that Stuck reasonably believed he was entitled to use the car defeats the exclusion and requires primary coverage by Ohio Casualty.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the declaratory judgment requiring Ohio Casualty to provide liability coverage to Stuck.
- The court held the phrase “reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so” was ambiguous because “entitled” could reasonably mean either (a) permission to use the vehicle or (b) permission plus legal authorization to drive.
- Applying Pennsylvania insurance-contract rules, the ambiguity was construed in favor of coverage and against Ohio Casualty as drafter.
- Under that construction, the relevant factual question was whether Stuck reasonably believed he had permission to use the Pontiac.
- Because the jury specifically found Stuck had a reasonable belief he was entitled to use the vehicle, the exclusion did not apply, and Ohio Casualty owed primary liability coverage (with State Farm’s coverage remaining excess).

## Legal Principles

- Insurance policy language is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.
- Ambiguous insurance provisions, including exclusions, are construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage.
- A “reasonable belief” exclusion that does not define “entitled” may be read to concern the driver’s belief of permission to use the vehicle, rather than licensing status, when both readings are reasonable.
- When contract interpretation leaves a factual question (e.g., the insured’s reasonable belief of permission), the factfinder’s resolution controls absent legal error.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Ohio Casualty’s undefined “reasonable belief” exclusion was ambiguous and, construed in favor of coverage, turned on whether the driver reasonably believed he had permission to use the car; the jury’s finding for the driver required Ohio Casualty to provide primary liability coverage.


State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 544 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)