Le Mense v. Thiel

The issue in this case relates to the following words affecting coverage under an automobile insurance policy: “furnished for the regular use . . . .” On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the complaint against the insurer, having concluded that the automobile in question was in fact furnished for the regular use of the driver, Mr. Thiel.

There are three strings to the appellant’s bow. She contends that the evidence demonstrates that the car was not “furnished” to Mr. Thiel. Secondly, she argues that at the time of the accident Mr. Thiel’s use of the car was not “regular…