ATV NOT A FARM TYPE VEHICLE

In December 2019, Diamond Jones (Jones) was struck by a tree branch and injured while riding on the back of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) driven by the daughter of Jennifer and Richard Rekowski (the Rekowskis). Jones filed action against the Rekowskis and their daughter due to negligence.

The accident did not occur on the Rekowskis’ property, but they owned the ATV. At the time of the incident, they were insured under a homeowners policy issued by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie). Erie answered the action by denying coverage. It advised that the policy did not cover the accident because of an exclusion on the policy for bodily injury that arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any land motor vehicle.

Jones filed for declaratory relief against Erie, the Rekowskis and their daughter. She sought judgment that Erie was obligated to pay the claim. Erie filed a motion for summary judgment as well.

The circuit court determined that the policy covered the accident because under the exclusion exception language, lawn or farm type vehicle was ambiguous and, therefore, should be interpreted against Erie. Erie appealed.

The appeals court reviewed the case. They concluded from the evidence that an ATV could be used for multiple purposes, including farm use, but it was not specifically a farm type vehicle like a combine or a tractor. There was no proof to support that the Rekowskis’ ATV was designed primarily for farm use. The Rekowskis also stated that the ATV was not used for farming.

The appeals court stated that to read farm type vehicle to include any vehicle that could potentially be used on a farm would create an exception so broad that it would render the limits on coverage meaningless. The court used an example that a pickup truck, sport utility vehicle, or even a motorcycle could be used on a farm. However, despite their potential for use on a farm, they are not farm type vehicles.

The court also stated that the other words of the policy exclusion clause further manifested an intent to exclude vehicles with a specialized or primary purpose. It provided an exception to the general rule of exclusion from coverage of any land motor vehicle, by covering, in addition to farm type vehicles, lawn type vehicles or snowblowers. Multipurpose vehicles were not an identifiable class or kind of specialized farm vehicle.

As a matter of law, the appeals court found that the language of lawn or farm type vehicle or snowblower did not contain a multi-use vehicle like an ATV; therefore, the exception for a farm type vehicle did not apply. However, the exclusion from coverage in the homeowner’s policy for land motor vehicles did apply because the incident did not occur at an insured location.

The appeals court found the circuit court erred in denying Erie’s motion for summary judgment and reversed the judgment finding in favor of Nationwide.

Erie Insurance Exchange, Appellant, v. Diamond Danelle Jones (An Infant, By Her Mother And Next Friend, Tracy Hardison), Appellee, Virginia Supreme Court, No. 210443, April 14, 2022