The Virginia Supreme Court docket has dominated that an all-terrain automobile (ATV) isn’t a “farm sort automobile” coated by a home-owner’s insurance coverage coverage, reversing a decrease court docket resolution.
The decrease court docket dominated for the injured celebration as a result of it had discovered the language within the home-owner’s coverage ambiguous. The Supreme Court docket disagreed, ruling {that a} coverage exclusion for a farm sort automobile doesn’t apply to the ATV.
In December 2019, Diamond Jones was using as a passenger on the again of an ATV. The daughter of Jennifer and Richard Rekowski was driving the automobile. Whereas Jones was using, a tree department struck and injured her. The accident didn’t happen on the Rekowskis’ property.
Jones filed a negligence motion for her accidents in opposition to the Rekowskis and their daughter. Erie contended that the coverage didn’t cowl the accident.
The Rekowskis had been insured by a home-owner’s coverage issued by Erie Insurance coverage Alternate. The exclusions part of the coverage broadly supplies that the coverage doesn’t cowl “[b]odily harm, property harm or private harm arising out of the possession, upkeep or use of … any land motorized vehicle.”
Automobiles, nonetheless, will not be excluded if: 1) they’re used solely at an insured location and never topic to motorized vehicle registration; 2) they’re stored in useless storage at an insured location; 3) they’re a leisure land motorized vehicle not designed to be used on public roads whereas at an insured location; 4) they’re a golf cart, wherever used or situated; 5) they’re a garden or farm sort automobile or snowblower, wherever used or situated, if not topic to motorized vehicle registration; 6) they’re designed to help the handicapped[.]
The state Supreme Court docket mentioned that “indisputably” a mix or a tractor is a “farm sort” automobile, as it’s designed and used primarily for farming.
The court docket continued that whereas the ATV on this case can doubtlessly be used for both recreation or to be used on a farm, there is no such thing as a proof that this ATV was designed for main use as a farm automobile, thus, the coverage exception for a farm sort automobile doesn’t apply, whereas the exclusion for “land motorized vehicle[s]” does apply as a result of the incident didn’t happen at an insured location.
Focused on Agribusiness?
Get automated alerts for this matter.
