In Burdick v. Erie Ins. Group, 2008 WL 902713 (Pa. Super., 2008), the insured, individually and as executrix of the insured's estate, brought an action against the automobile insurer Erie for declaratory judgment invalidating the exclusion of UM coverage for the collision with motor a vehicle intended primarily for off-road use. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer, and the insured appealed.
The case arose out of an accident that occurred when the insureds were traveling in their vehicle on a public roadway in Pennsylvania . At the time of the accident, Nicholas Dragone was operating a dirt bike in a private driveway that intersected with the public roadway upon which the Burdicks were traveling. The Burdicks' vehicle collided with Dragone's dirt bike and then ran into a ditch when the bike suddenly entered the roadway in front of the Burdicks' vehicle. The Burdicks both suffered injuries as a result of the accident.
The dirt bike at issue was unregistered and uninsured. Consequently, the Burdicks filed a claim for UM benefits with Erie, which Erie denied on the basis that the dirt bike was specifically excluded because it was designed for use primarily off road.
The insureds sought declaratory judgment against Erie , seeking a judicial declaration that the Burdicks were entitled to UM benefits. Thereafter, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Erie , concluding that the exclusion contained within the Erie Policy did not violate the MVFRL, and the Burdicks appealed
In this case, the parties agreed that the dirt bike at issue was an uninsured vehicle mainly for use off of public roads. The issues for the appeals court were: whether a contractual exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage for a collision with a motor vehicle intended primarily for off-road use violated the MVFRL where the Law made no provision for such an exclusion, and whether a motor vehicle insurance policy was contrary to public policy where it attempted to exclude from uninsured motorist coverage a claim for injuries suffered in a collision on a public highway with a motor vehicle not intended for highway use?
In its decision, the court explained that its resolution of the matter was determined by its construction of the MVFRL, which required that UM coverage be offered. In doing so, it looked to the Statutory Construction Act , which required the court to construe the words of a statute according to their plain meaning. The court also stated that it must presume that the legislature did not intend any language of the statute to exist as mere surplusage, thus “[e]very statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”
The Burdicks argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Erie on the basis of the policy's exclusion of UM coverage for a collision with a motor vehicle intended primarily for off-road use violates the MVFRL. Specifically, the Burdicks contended that since the legislature chose not to make a provision for such an exclusion within the UM coverage statute, as it chose to do with respect to first-party benefits, the policy's exclusion impermissibly narrowed the MVFRL. Moreover, the Burdicks asserted that the policy's exclusion violateed the public policy considerations underlying the MVFRL.
The Burdicks argued that Dragone's dirt bike fell within the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle for purposes of UM coverage and that the policy's definition of uninsured motor vehicle impermissibly narrowed the MVFRL, which defined an “uninsured motor vehicle,” in relevant part, as “[a] motor vehicle for which there is no liability insurance or self-insurance applicable at the time of the accident.”
The court stated that while the MVFRL defined uninsured motor vehicle, it did not provide a definition of the term “motor vehicle,” though the legislature provided a definition of motor vehicle within the broader Vehicle Code. In the Vehicle Code, the court explained, “motor vehicle” was defined as “[a] vehicle which is self-propelled except an electric personal assistive mobility device or a vehicle which is propelled solely by human power or by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails.” Therefore, the court concluded that the dirt bike at issue fell within the definition of a motor vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code.
The court further explained that in applying the rules of the Statutory Construction Act, the plain language of the Vehicle Code established that the dirt bike upon which Dragone was riding was a motor vehicle as defined by the statute. Moreover, the SCA clearly provided that “[UM] coverage shall provide protection for persons who suffer injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and are legally entitled to recover damages therefore from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles.” Accordingly, the court held that the exclusion contained in the Erie policy, which excluded UM coverage for a collision with a motor vehicle intended primarily for off-road use, violated the MVFRL.