Appeals from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County, Civil Division, at No. 678 of 1984.
James F. Manley, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Frank M. Gianola, Pittsburgh, for State Farm, appellee.
Brosky, Del Sole and Hoffman, JJ.
[ 369 Pa. Super. Page 440]
This is an appeal from a judgment entered against appellant in a declaratory judgment action.*fn1 Appellant is the provider of insurance coverage under a "garage policy" to Gillner Motors whose vehicle was involved in a traffic accident. Appellee State Farm provided appellee Juan Fuentes with automobile insurance. Fuentes, an employee of Gillner Motors, was driving the Gillner vehicle during the collision at issue. Appellant brought this action to determine which insurance provider was responsible for coverage of the accident. Upon consideration of oral and written argumentation of all parties. We affirm the judgment in part, reverse in part and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The facts in this case are undisputed. On October 2, 1982, Juan Fuentes was operating a motor vehicle which was owned by his employer, Gillner Motors, Inc., when he was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by Nicholas Cordasco. Mr. Cordasco received personal injuries in the collision. Juan Fuentes was not operating the vehicle
[ 369 Pa. Super. Page 441]
owned by Gillner Motors as an employee, or agent of Gillner Motors at the time of the accident. Mr. Fuentes' personal automobile was being repaired at Gillner Motors and needed a carburetor which was ordered through the Parts Department of Gillner Motors, an auto dealership. The Gillner Motor vehicle was loaned to Mr. Fuentes until the carburetor was received and installed in his automobile.
At the time of the accident in question, Mr. Fuentes carried automobile insurance on his personal automobile through State Farm Mutual. Gillner Motors had a garage policy through Appellant, Connecticut Indemnity Company. The trial court determined that appellant had a duty to provide coverage of the accident and that appellee State Farm had no duty to provide either primary or excess coverage.
Appellant's first argument is that Fuentes was a customer of Gillner Motors and therefore falls into the following exclusion in the Connecticut policy:
a. You are an insured for ...