No homeowners’ coverage for ATV

A homeowners’ policy does not provide coverage for appellee’s accidental injuries sustained while riding on an all-terrain vehicle.

Insurance coverage is unavailable because the ATV does not qualify as a “farm type vehicle.”

Background

Diamond Jones was a passenger on an ATV. The Rekowskis owned the ATV. Their daughter was driving it when a tree branch struck and injured Diamond. The accident did not happen on the Rekowskis’ property.

The Rekowskis had a homeowners’ policy issued by Erie Insurance. Under the relevant policy provisions, coverage would be available if the accident occurred on the Rekowskis’ property or if the ATV was a “lawn or farm type vehicle.”

Jones’ mother, as next friend, sued the Rekowskis and their daughter. Jones sought a declaration that coverage was available under the Rekowskis’ homeowners’ policy. Jones and Erie each filed a motion for summary judgment.

The circuit court ruled that the “lawn or farm type vehicle” language in the policy was ambiguous and therefore should be construed against Erie.

Erie appealed.

Legal standards

“‘When a disputed policy term is unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning as written. … Where, however, ‘disputed policy language is ambiguous and can be understood to have more than one meaning, we construe the language in favor of coverage and against the insurer.’ …

“A contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms used. …

“The policy generally excludes motor vehicles from coverage, but an exception to that broad exclusion provides coverage for ‘a lawn or farm type vehicle or snowblower.’

“‘Type’ is defined as ‘qualities common to a number of individuals that serve to distinguish them as an identifiable class or kind’; ‘an individual exhibiting distinguishable qualities of its kind’; a group or category exhibiting such a type: a particular kind, class or group[.]’ …

“It is also defined as: ‘a class, kind or group set apart by common characteristics.’”

Discussion

“Indisputably, a combine or a tractor is a ‘farm type’ vehicle. Such vehicles are identifiable as a class or kind of vehicles designed for and used primarily for farming.

“A combine or a tractor can be used for other purposes, of course. For instance, a tractor could be employed for entertainment purposes such as a hayride or a tractor pull, and a combine might be used as a prop in a movie.

“Still, what identifies a combine or a tractor as a ‘class or kind’ and the qualities that distinguish them from other vehicles is that they are designed to be primarily used on a farm.

“The evidence here, including from the plaintiff’s expert, establishes that this ATV can potentially be used for either recreation or for use on a farm, i.e., it is a multi-use vehicle.

“A multi-use vehicle with potential for use on a farm is not a ‘farm type’ vehicle. No evidence establishes that this ATV is designed for primary use as a farm vehicle like a combine or a tractor.

“To read ‘farm type vehicle’ as encompassing any vehicle that could potentially be used on a farm would create an exception so broad it would render the limits on coverage meaningless.

“A pickup truck, sport utility vehicle, or even a motorcycle can be used on a farm. However, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles, despite their potential for use on a farm, are not ‘farm type’ vehicles.”

Holding

“We conclude as a matter of law that the language ‘lawn or farm type vehicle or snowblower’ does not encompass a multi-use vehicle like an ATV.

“The exception for a farm type vehicle does not apply, and the exclusion from coverage in the homeowner’s policy for ‘land motor vehicle[s]’ does apply because the incident did not take place at an insured location. Therefore, the circuit court erred in denying Erie’s motion for summary judgment.”

Reversed. Final judgment entered in favor of insurer.

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Jones, Record No. 210443 (McCullough) April 14, 2022. From the Pittsylvania County Circuit Court (Moreau). John P. O’Herron (Henry C. Spalding, III; ThompsonMcMullan, on briefs), for appellant. David Adam McKelvey (Crandall and Katt, on brief), for appellee. Amicus Curiae: On Behalf of O.R., a Minor (Timothy M. Fisk; Fisk & Gregory, on brief), in support of appellee. VLW 022-6-023, 6 pp.