The automobile involved in this litigation was neither owned by the named insured nor described in the insurance policy. The Plaintiff claims that the automobile involved in this litigation was furnished to the named insured and relatives of the named insured for an irregular, infrequent, or casual use, and was thus covered by the policy. The insurance carrier, [the Defendant], claims that the automobile involved in this litigation was ["furnished or available for the frequent or regular use of the named insured or any relative" of the named insured] and was thus excluded from coverage under the insurance policy.

An automobile is not ["furnished or available for frequent or regular use"] within the exclusionary provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy unless at the time of the mishap giving rise to the claim, the automobile was being used by a person for whom it had been furnished, or to whom it had been made available, for a purpose for which it was frequently or regularly used.

A person who claims coverage under a "non-owner automobile" provision of a liability insurance policy has the burden of proving at the time of the mishap, the automobile involved was not one that was ["furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of the named insured or any relative"].

*****