Defendant’s Answer thereto, and Plaintiffs Reply, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED as to Count II, the uninsured motorist provision, and DENIED as to Count III, the first party medical and wage loss benefits provision. Plaintiff has no obligation to provide uninsured motorist benefits to Defendant Attoy Davis. 1 . Defendant has admitted in his answer to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment that he may not have had permission from Holland, but he avers that he did have permission from Bernard; however, Defendant has not provided any affidavits, depositions, or other evidence of this permission. (Def.'s Ans. at 1). 2 . The defendant Davis is not alleged to have been the driver of Holland’s vehicle. 3 . But see Adamski v. Miller, 545 Pa. 316, 681 A.2d 171 (1996) (<HOLDING>) 4 . There is a line of Pennsylvania cases as
holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car holding that where a mother had established a place of residence for her pregnant daughter and her daughters boyfriend and loaned the daughter her car where the daughter had allowed the boyfriend to use the car and the boyfriend was the one who maintained and serviced the car and where the mother had seen the boyfriend driving the car without telling him not to that the boyfriend had implied permission to use the car the court found that the evidence demonstrated implied permission through the relationship between the parties and the course of conduct holding that where officers order an individual under threat of arrest into the car of her obviously inebriated boyfriend and shortly thereafter she is killed when her boyfriend wrecks his car on an interstate highway a  1983 claim can be pursued against the state on a statecreateddanger theory of liability holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept