On appeal, Enterprise argued that the applications judge erred in finding that the driver of the rental car (a listed driver under her father’s OAP1) was not “an insured named in the contract” and/or a “driver named in the contract” such that the priority provisions of s. 277(1.1)(2) of the Insurance Act would apply. The Divisional Court held that section 2.2.4 of the OAP1 provides that liability coverage is available for rental vehicles, but only when rented by the “named insured” or his/her spouse. The Divisional Court went on to find that the applications judge therefore properly concluded that insurance coverage was not “available” to a listed driver for the rental vehicle.
