UM Coverage for Off-Road Vehicle
The insured sought uninsured motorists (UM) coverage after being injured while using an ATV on a trail. The insurer denied coverage and the insured sued. This case is Hale v. Allied Insurance, 2012 WL 287168. Note that only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Hale was severely injured in an ATV accident while using the vehicle on a trail in a recreational area. Hale had a motor vehicle insurance policy for his four autos and the policy included uninsured motorists and medical payments coverage. However, the UM coverage excluded accidents involving “any vehicle or equipment designed mainly for use off public roads while not upon public roads. The policy did not include a definition of “road”, and reasoning that the ATV was designed for off-road use and the trail was not a public road, the insurer denied Hale's claim.
Hale filed a complaint against the insurer and the district court sided with the insurer. This appeal followed.
Hale made two arguments as to why he was entitled to benefits under his UM coverage. First, the accident occurred on a public road; second, even if the accident did not occur on a public road, he is entitled to compensation under Wyoming law governing UM coverage. The appeals court said that the accident did not occur on a public road and so, it declined to consider Hale's second argument.
The court said that even though Hale's policy did not define “public road”, it nevertheless distinguishes between public roads and terrain suitable only for specially designed vehicles. The policy's language excludes coverage for accidents involving vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads while not upon public roads. Necessarily excluded from the category of “public roads” are many of the paths and trails for which ATVs are especially suited by design and use. The trail where the accident happened is just such a place. The trail was steep, slick, and dangerous.
Because the trail was barely passable even for vehicles designed mainly for use off public roads, the court found that the trail was not a public road. It was, in the court's opinion, an obstacle course. The opinion of the district court was affirmed.
Editor's Note: The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, used the facts of the situation to affirm the district court's ruling. The policy excluded coverage for a vehicle that was designed for use off public roads while not on public roads. The ATV used by Hale was definitely designed for use off public roads, and the facts proved to the court that the accident happened on a trail that no one could reasonably consider to be a public road. Since the policy did not define a “public road”, the reasonable man standard guided the court's ruling.