Virginia Supreme Court Rules Against ATV Coverage Under Homeowner’s Insurance
The Virginia Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) does not fall under the definition of a ‘farm type vehicle’ as described in a homeowner’s insurance policy. This decision overturns a lower court’s ruling that had initially supported coverage for the injured party.
The lower court’s decision was based on the ambiguity found in the homeowner’s policy language. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the exception to the policy exclusion for a farm type vehicle does not apply to the ATV in question.
The case involved Diamond Jones, who was injured in December 2019 while riding as a passenger on an ATV driven by the Rekowskis’ daughter. The accident occurred off the Rekowskis’ property, and Jones subsequently filed a negligence claim against the Rekowskis and their daughter. Erie Insurance Exchange, the Rekowskis’ insurance provider, argued that their homeowner’s policy did not cover the accident.
The policy’s exclusions section generally excludes coverage for bodily injury arising from the use of any land motor vehicle. However, there are exceptions for certain types of vehicles, including those that are considered ‘lawn or farm type vehicles’ regardless of their location, provided they are not subject to motor vehicle registration.
The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of ‘farm type vehicle.’ The court noted that vehicles like combines or tractors are indisputably ‘farm type’ because they are primarily designed and used for farming purposes. Although an ATV can potentially be used on a farm, there was no evidence that the ATV in question was designed primarily for farm use. The court reasoned that to classify any vehicle that could be used on a farm as a ‘farm type vehicle’ would overly broaden the exception and render the coverage limits meaningless.
The court concluded that the term ‘lawn or farm type vehicle or snowblower’ does not encompass multi-use vehicles like ATVs. Therefore, the policy exception for a farm type vehicle does not apply, and the exclusion for land motor vehicles is applicable since the incident did not occur at an insured location.
This ruling has implications for insurance coverage in cases involving ATVs and other multi-use vehicles.
Written By Andrew G. Simpson
Simpson is a freelance writer and editor. He retired as Chief Content Officer for Wells Media Group in July 2022 after 18 years with the company.
