A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a motorcycle was a vehicle under the terms of three automobile insurance policies and, therefore, that the motorcycle’s owner was not entitled to uninsured or underinsured (“UM”) benefits under the policies for injuries he suffered in an accident.

The Case

When Kristen Cusack’s son, Christopher Straub, moved in with Kristen and Robert Cusack, he owned an uninsured Harley Davidson motorcycle.

He subsequently was involved in an accident while driving his motorcycle.

Straub sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which had issued automobile insurance policies to the Cusacks, to recover UM benefits.

State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “plain meaning” of the term motor vehicle in its policies included Straub’s motorcycle and, therefore, that he could not recover UM benefits under the policies as a result of an exclusion in the policies.

The State Farm policies

The automobile policies issued by State Farm to the Cusacks stated:

Exclusions
THERE IS NO COVERAGE:
2. FOR AN INSURED WHO SUSTAINS BODILY INJURY:
a. WHILE OCCUPYING A VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU OR ANY RESIDENT RELATIVE IF IT IS NOT YOUR CAR OR A NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR;

(bold italics, in original policies, indicate terms defined by the policies).

The district court’s decision

The district court granted State Farm’s motion.

In its decision, it agreed with State Farm that the term “vehicle” in the UM benefit exclusion had to be given its plain meaning, and that the “plain meaning of the term ‘vehicle’ certainly encompasse[d] a motorcycle.”

The district court reasoned that its conclusion also was “impliedly supported” by the Cusack policies because they defined a “motor vehicle” as a “vehicle with four or more wheels....”

According to the district court, that definition implied that “there could be ‘vehicles’ with fewer than four wheels that [were] simply undefined.” The district court stated that it would not rewrite the UM benefits exclusion to add the word “motor” before “vehicle” and that it would not deem “vehicle” ambiguous because it was undefined and construe it against State Farm.

The case is Straub v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., No: 5:16-cv-342-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2017).

Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. He can be reached at smeyerowitz@alm.com.

Special Reports /

Motorcycle was a vehicle, and excluded from State Farm policy, Fla. court decides

Related Stories

Recommended For You