The plaintiff, William Conners, was injured as a passenger in a car accident.
He initiated two actions: one against the driver, owner, and their insurer, Gore Mutual, and another against Unica Insurance, an insurer of a past employer.
Both Gore Mutual and Unica brought motions for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the actions against them.
Gore Mutual argued lack of coverage due to the driver operating the vehicle without the owner's consent.
Unica contended no coverage as Conners was no longer an employee for whom a vehicle was furnished.
The court dismissed both actions, finding that Conners was not an "insured person" under either policy based on the Insurance Act and relevant policy exclusions.
