On summary judgment about competing OPCF 44R endorsements, the Court held that the plaintiff qualified under his employer’s Allstate policy but not under his father’s TD motorcycle policy. Section 22 makes the 44R a change form with priority where it provides otherwise, and section 1.6(b) effectively defines “other automobile” and limits exclusions to vehicles owned or leased by the named insured, not to regular or frequent use. That ousted OAP 1 Special Condition 6.
Reading Kahlon and Hesch together, the court found that the plaintiff satisfied Allstate’s 1.6(b) definition of “insured person,” so Allstate’s 44R responded. Under the TD policy, the plaintiff did not meet 1.6(a)’s “insured person” definition once the proviso regarding coverage under another 44R was applied. Ultimately, only Allstate owed 44R benefits, and TD was entitled to reimbursement of the settlement it had paid.