 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peck8/23/2005
question is whether the ATV was subject to "motor vehicle registration" under Missouri law. These cases simply do not aid in that analysis.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by American Family's argument equating ATV registration to motor vehicle registration simply because both are administered by the Department of Revenue. Construing the policy's language to provide or deny coverage based upon the administrative agency that receives and processes the registration is a tortured interpretation that we resist entertaining here. The more reasoned approach, the one we have chosen, is to decide whether registering a motor vehicle for operation on a public highway and registering an ATV is the same thing; for the purposes of the insurance policy at issue, we find that they are not. It is illogical to equate the two types of registration in light of the statutes and regulations reviewed above.
Finally, American Family also appears to argue that since ATV's have previously been held to be within the broad statutory definition of a "motor vehicle," s ee Rice v. Fire Ins. Exch. , 946 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. App. 1997), that ATV's are necessarily subject to motor vehicle registration. This argument is also unpersuasive. Section 301.010.33, defines "motor vehicle" broadly as "any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon tracks, except farm tractors." To be sure, the vehicle at issue likely falls within this broad description. However, simply because a vehicle with a motor is considered within the broad statutory definition of a "motor vehicle" does not mean that it is "subject to motor vehicle registration." See Stonger v. Riggs , 85 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. App. 2002) (riding lawnmower was "motor vehicle" where mower was used on the street); Covert v. Fisher, 151 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. App. 2004) (golf cart was " motor vehicle" when driven on public highway) . In neither of these cases would anyone reasonably argue that the "motor vehicles" at issue were subject to the motor vehicle registration procedures required of road worthy vehicles (nor could they qualify to be so) even though they were technically within the broad statutory definition of a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle can be used in many contexts; the relevant question here is not whether this ATV is a motor vehicle, but whether it is subject to motor vehicle registration. We conclude that it is not.
As such, the vehicle Bakalar was driving at the time of the accident that resulted in Devon Peck's death was not "subject to motor vehicle registration" as the term is used in the policy issued to him. T herefore, the vehicle falls within the exception to the exclusion and cov erage exists under the policy.
The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|