Dixon v. GEICO

CONCURRING OPINION BY

OTT, J.:

¶ 1 While I concur with the Majority decision, I write separately to emphasize what I believe is the most salient problem with this matter.

¶ 2 It is undisputed in this matter that Dixon’s job entails his driving vehicles of the post office fleet and that he is not driving any specific or particular vehicle. Therefore, to the extent the interpretation of the exclusion rests on the fact that Dixon operates vehicles from a fleet of ears, Nationwide v. Easley, 960 A.2d 843 (Pa.Super.2008), and Brink v. Erie, 940 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super.2008), tell us the exclusion applies.9