621 A.2d at 1017. Enforcement of a family member exclusion clause impairs the interest that Pennsylvania has in providing protection and compensation to all persons (family or not) suffering injury as a result of negligent drivers. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he reason for [a family member] exclusion is obvious: to protect the insurer from ove into in Florida, and covers vehicles with Florida plates and registration. Caputo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 Pa.Super. 1, 495 A.2d 959, 962 (1985) (applying New Jersey law when the insurance policy was issued in New Jersey to a New Jersey resident, despite the fact that the car accident occurred in Pennsylvania). Lastly, the location of the insurance company’s office is in Florida. Cont’l Cas. Co., 884 F.Supp. at 950-51 (<HOLDING>). Although Esurance does conduct business in
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it gave aggravating factors considerable weight holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole recognizing that considerable weight has been given to the location of the insurance companys office and the place where the decision to withhold benefits was made recognizing that the weight to be afforded any given argument made pursuant to one of the section 3553a factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge