context: Although the Pennsylvania case law, as does ours, presents a variety of factual scenarios, it includes cases, like this one, in which one household vehicle, the vehicle the insured occupied when injured, was excluded from UIM coverage under the policy insuring another household vehicle, and the exclusion was upheld.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 32 A.3d 1195, 1195
citation_a.parenthetical: in both cases, claimant was injured while occupying a regularly used, non-owned vehicle and was denied UIM coverage under the policy covering the claimant's personal vehicle
citation_a.sentence: See also Burstein, 809 A.2d at 204, and Williams, 32 A.3d at 1195, (in both cases, claimant was injured while occupying a regularly used, non-owned vehicle and was denied UIM coverage under the policy covering the claimant’s personal vehicle).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: son injured in his own # car sought UIM benefits under the policy cov ering the vehicles of his parents, with whom he resided
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Baker, 972 A.2d at 507 (claimant, injured while riding his motorcycle, sought UIM benefits under a policy covering his three other vehicles); Prudential Prop. & Cos. Ins. Co. v. Colbert, 572 Pa. 82, 813 A.2d 747 (2002) (son injured in his own ■ car sought UIM benefits under the policy cov ering the vehicles of his parents, with whom he resided); Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 551 Pa. 558, 711 A.2d 1006 (1998) (same except resident son injured while riding motorcycle).