Апелляционный суд Орегона запретил страховой компании Progressive отказывать в выплате пострадавшим мотоциклистам

Progressive can't use a "regular use" exclusion to deny underinsured motorist coverage to two injured motorcyclists, an Oregon appeals court ruled. Two riders were hurt in separate crashes caused by underinsured drivers, and their injuries topped the limits of their motorcycle Underinsured (UIM) coverage. Both also held Progressive auto policies covering other vehicles that weren't in the accidents, so both looked to those policies for more. Progressive refused, citing a "regular use" exclusion. The exclusion cut off coverage for injury suffered while "occupying or being struck by a motor vehicle that is owned by or furnished for the regular use of you, a relative, or a rated resident," unless the vehicle was a "covered auto." Progressive defined that term to mean an "additional auto" or "replacement auto," and defined "auto" as a land motor vehicle "with at least four wheels." The riders sued for breach of contract, arguing the exclusion gave them less than Oregon's model policy - the statutory minimum every auto policy must meet - and so couldn't stand. The trial court granted Progressive summary judgment, finding the facts didn't trigger the provision. The riders appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed on August 19, 2026. The court applied Oregon's coverage-to-coverage test. Under Oregon Revised Statutes 742.504, a policy must offer UIM coverage "no less favorable in any respect" than the model. That statute defines "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" to include two- and three-wheeled devices, motorcycles among them. Progressive's four-wheel definition of "auto" left them out, which the court said "materially narrows the coverage available." A second gap mattered. The model policy preserves coverage for substitute vehicles. Progressive's policy covered "additional" and "replacement" autos, which require ownership or permanency, but not substitute vehicles. Progressive pointed to a recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling, saying the high court had already approved the same exclusion. The appeals court disagreed, noting the question "was neither presented nor argued before the court in that case." With the exclusion stricken, the riders were entitled to UIM coverage. The court reversed and remanded.