Ah, the wonders of the acronym! How dull or inconvenient ourworld would be if we had to forsake our fondness for (and the sheerpracticality of) those little shortcuts of meaning. From thosegracing all office conversation (FYI, ASAP, CYA) to those of theInternet (LOL, ROFL), acronyms both old and new grease the wheelsof communication in our daily lives.

While perusing the message trees on a vendor-help Web site, Istumbled across one that may prove particularly useful to insurancefolks. After one query, evidently thought to be a bit too basic bythe responding staffer, appeared the short and sweet reply: "RTFM!"Not being familiar with that particular acronym, I plugged it intothe Google search engine and was directed to an online dictionaryfor computer jargon. Thereupon I was apprised of the true meaningof the term, parts of which are unsuitable for use in print byanyone other than the Vice President. For our purposes, I willrender it thusly: "Read The Freaking Manual!"

Why did this particular Internet acronym strike a chord withinmy soul? Because I immediately sensed the need for an insuranceequivalent-RTFF! As in, "Read the Freaking Form!" Recently, in aCGL class I was teaching, there arose a heated discussion ofliability coverage for autos versus mobile equipment. Although theresolution of such disputes invariably turns on whether a specificvehicle is considered to be an "auto" or "mobile equipment," thestudents got stuck on such side issues as "tags" and "usage onpublic roads."

Didn't we resolve this issue nearly 20 years ago when the ISO"simplified" CGL forms were released, with a fairly detailed andcomprehensive definition of mobile equipment? Unlike the definitionof occurrence, the musicality of rap, or the "Harry Potter versusLord of the Rings (LOTR)" contest (current status: Potter, morebooks; LOTR, better movies), there is little controversy over thedefinitions of "auto" and "mobile equipment."

For this month, let's stroll through the ISO CG 00 01 10 01 formand focus on the definition issue, since coverage flows directlyfrom that key determination. The applicable CGL exclusion reads asfollows:

g. Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft
"Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the ownership,maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, "auto"or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to anyinsured. Use includes operation and "loading or unloading."

Clearly the CGL intends to exclude coverage for liabilityarising from use of an auto and to move any and all such coverageto the business auto form. So what does the CGL consider to be an"auto," and thus excluded? The definition reads as follows:

"Auto" means a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailerdesigned for travel on public roads, including any attachedmachinery or equipment. But "auto" does not include "mobileequipment."

Folks may be so familiar with the term "auto" that they think itis unnecessary to actually read the definition. (After all, theBeatles never sang "Baby, you can drive my mobile equipment.") Ifthey don't read it, however, they will overlook that crucial lastsentence.

At this juncture, let's consider two key points. First, thedefinition of "auto" is the same in the CGL and in the businessauto coverage form, so ISO clearly intends no overlap or confusionof terms between the two. Second, anything meeting the definitionof "mobile equipment" is not an "auto." A vehicle must be one orthe other, never both. If a specific vehicle fits the definition of"mobile equipment," it is not subject to CGL exclusion "g." Now wearrive at the Rosetta stone of all "auto versus mobile equipment"disputes-the policy definition of mobile equipment. Ladies andgentlemen, I present the complete and unabridged definition:

"12. 'Mobile equipment' means any of the following types of landvehicles, including any attached machinery or equipment:
"a. Bulldozers, farm machinery, forklifts and other vehiclesdesigned for use principally off public roads;
"b. Vehicles maintained for use solely on or next to premises youown or rent;
"c. Vehicles that travel on crawler treads;
"d. Vehicles, whether self-propelled or not, maintained primarilyto provide mobility to permanently mounted:
"(1) Power cranes, shovels, loaders, diggers or drills; or
"(2) Road construction or resurfacing equipment such as graders,scrapers or rollers;
"e. Vehicles not described in a., b., c. or d. above that are notself-propelled and are maintained primarily to provide mobility topermanently attached equipment of the following types:
"(1) Air compressors, pumps and generators, including spraying,welding, building cleaning, geophysical exploration, lighting andwell servicing equipment; or
"(2) Cherry pickers and similar devices used to raise or lowerworkers;
"f. Vehicles not described in a., b., c. or d. above maintainedprimarily for purposes other than the transportation of persons orcargo.
"However, self-propelled vehicles with the following types ofpermanently attached equipment are not 'mobile equipment' but willbe considered 'autos':
"(1) Equipment designed primarily for:
"(a) Snow removal;
"(b) Road maintenance, but not construction or resurfacing;or
"(c) Street cleaning;
"(2) Cherry pickers and similar devices mounted on automobile ortruck chassis and used to raise or lower workers; and
"(3) Air compressors, pumps and generators, including spraying,welding, building cleaning, geophysical exploration, lighting andwell servicing equipment."
Thus, to determine whether a given vehicle is considered an auto ormobile equipment, simply read through the definition and see if youfind that vehicle listed. If so, you have your answer. Don't guess.Don't assume. RTFF!!

Some people have told me the vehicles identified in paragraphs12.a.-12.e. are clear, but then they get lost when they reach 12.f.and run into that "however." They may become confused becausethey're trying to figure out a pattern instead of simply readingthe definition. Don't try to outguess the form, just read what itsays. For example, is a self-propelled "cherry picker" (alsocommonly referred to as a "bucket truck"-the type used by powercompany employees working on overhead lines) an "auto" or "mobileequipment"? Read that sentence beginning with "However" again:"...the following types of permanently mounted equipment are not'mobile equipment' but will be considered 'autos'..." So, accordingto the CGL definition, a self-propelled cherry picker is an "auto."Why? Because the form says so!

What about coverage for a vehicle with a tag or one beingoperated on a public road at the time of loss? Do these mattersaffect how the definitions (and thus coverage forms) apply? Let'sRTFF!

First, whether a vehicle bears a "tag" is a non-issue. Nowhereis the term "tag," or even the allied term "registered," evermentioned. A state can levy fees on any type of vehicle it wishes,but that has no bearing on commercial liability coverage. Put a tagon a power crane and it's still a power crane, clearly defined as"mobile equipment."

Second, public roads are an issue only for certain types ofvehicles, and even for those, it doesn't matter if the vehicle isactually on the public roads at the time of the loss. In 12.a., theprovision reads "...other vehicles designed for use principally offpublic roads." It doesn't say "never used upon public roads" or"unless used upon public roads." It refers to vehicles designed foruse "principally" off public roads. Occasional and necessary use(traveling to a repair facility, crossing the road to another jobsite) on public roads is perfectly acceptable, with no impact oncoverage.

In 12.b., the public-roads issue may be inferred from thewording "maintained for use solely on or next to premises." Again,the focus is upon intent, not whether the vehicle is actually upona road at the time of loss. As long as the vehicle is "maintained"for use only on or next to the premises, it is covered as mobileequipment anywhere. (And who's to say that "next to" a premisescouldn't include a public road adjoining or abutting saidpremises?)

Once again we find ourselves coming out from the dark clouds ofcoverage confusion into the bold, clear light of understanding.It's great when a policy provision makes perfect sense, but even ifit doesn't click when first filtered through our own preferences,experiences and prejudices, the form language is still there. Sure,it can confound and obfuscate at times, but too often it is ignoredeven when clear and unambiguous.

So, unless you want to be DOA and SOL, you'd better CYA ASAP andRTFF!