Golf Cart Designated as an Uninsured Motor Vehicle by Kansas Court
The trial court ruled that a stolen golf cart being driven on a public highway was an uninsured motor vehicle under the uninsured motorists (UM) coverage of an automobile insurance policy. The opinion was appealed. This case is Estate of Dutkiewicz v. Benchmark Insurance Company, 2010 WL 2545668 (Kan.App.).
Dutkiewicz was driving her auto in an easterly direction in Reno County when she rear-ended a golf cart being driven by Rhames; Rhames had stolen the golf cart which did not have taillights or headlights. Dutkiewicz suffered injuries as the result of the accident. There was no liability insurance coverage on the golf cart so Dutkiewicz made a claim under her UM coverage against her insurer, Benchmark. The insurer denied coverage. Dutkiewicz died from causes unrelated to the accident but her estate sued Benchmark. The trial court ruled in favor of the estate and this appeal followed.
Benchmark asserted that there is no coverage in this instance because the policy definition as well as a statutory definition of motor vehicle was not met. The policy definition stated that a motor vehicle is a self-propelled vehicle designed for use on public roads. Kansas state law described a motor vehicle as every self-propelled vehicle of a kind required to be registered in the state. The appeals court said that, while a golf cart is not designed and manufactured for use on a public road, it was being operated on the highway at the time of the accident; and so, registration was statutorily required. Therefore, a motor vehicle liability insurance policy is required and this makes the golf cart an uninsured motor vehicle. The court further noted that Kansas courts have consistently held that a vehicle being operated on public roads, whether designed for such use or not, is a motor vehicle at that time for UM coverage. Basically, the court found the definition of motor vehicle contained in the auto policy to be more restrictive than state law; the appeals court said that it was overly narrow and will not be enforced against Dutkiewicz.
The insurer argued that the state law's definition of a motor vehicle as a self-propelled vehicle of the kind required to be registered cannot be applied to a golf cart. However, the appeals court said that the critical factor is that when an off-road vehicle is being operated on a public highway, it is in fact a vehicle required to be registered and for which liability insurance is required. The court saw the sole dispositive issue as whether the vehicle is being used on a public highway. In this instance, the golf cart is self-propelled, and it was being used on a highway in such a manner that would have required it to be registered. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Editor's Note: This case makes the point that state law and the way it is interpreted by the courts in that state trump the language in an insurance policy. The insurer's definition of an uninsured motor vehicle was deemed by the court to be overly narrow in comparison with the state statute's definition, and the appeals court would not enforce the policy's wording in such an instance.