Lontkowski v. Ignarski

The ultimate question presented by this appeal is whether the exclusion provision of the Dairyland policy, quoted in the statement of facts, operated to exclude coverage of Donald’s automobile at the time of the accident.

Appellant contends that the question was settled in favor of coverage by the jury’s verdict, approved by the court, that Donald did not furnish his automobile for regular use to Joseph. The argument is that the expression “furnished for regular use” applies to all of the situations described in the exclusion, and that unless the automobile has been furnished for regular use…