Before trial, the parties engaged in an arbitration of Progressive’s declaratory judgment claim. Edmunds demanded a trial de novo to appeal the arbitration award, and the parties stipulated to the admission of the arbitration testimony at trial. 4 . The parties agree that Pennsylvania law applies to this diversity action because Edmunds’ policy was issued in Pennsylvania and the accident occurred in Pennsylvania. 5 . Progressive’s reliance on Ratush v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 422 Pa.Super. 389, 619 A.2d 733 (1992), and Rykill v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 80 Pa.Super. 492 (1923), in support of its argument that the business use exclusion applies here is misplaced. In both Ra-tush and Rykill the vehicles in question were regularly used for business purposes. See Ra-tush, 619 A.2d at 734 (<HOLDING>); Rykill, 80 Pa.Super. at 493-95 (holding that
holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that business use exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage of an insured after a car accident when the insured had been transporting a refrigerator in his personal vehicle as a favor to a friend had no expectation of compensation except being reimbursed for the cost of gas and it was an isolated incident holding that particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to entire apartment insured was renovating even though insured was working only on one part of apartment at time of damage holding that business use exclusion precluded coverage when insured was operating a taxicab whose purpose was to carry passengers for hire even though at the time of the accident insured did not have a passenger holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party