2009AP2385 Olson v. Farrar

Listen to this article

Insurance
Definition of motor vehicle

An insurer must present evidence that a tractor is designed to be operated on public roads to include it within a motor vehicle exclusion.

“‘Motor vehicle’ is defined by the policy as a motorized vehicle designed for use on public roads. The question in this case is whether Farrar’s tractor was designed for use on public roads. Unless a term is technical or specially defined, it is construed according to its common and approved usage, which may be established by resort to recognized dictionaries. Northwest Properties v. Outagamie County, 223 Wis. 2d 483, 490, 589 N.W.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998). According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 611 (1993), ‘design’ is defined as ‘to devise or propose for a specific function.’ ‘Use’ is defined as ‘to put into action or service,” and “to carry out a purpose or action by means of. Id. at 2523-2524.”

“The flaw in Mt. Morris’s argument is that it does not point to undisputed evidence showing that any aspect of the particular tractor in this case was designed for highway use.”

“The tractor at issue is a Massey Ferguson model number 1130. The manual for the tractor makes plain that the manufacturer anticipates that a user will sometimes operate the tractor on public roads. For example, the manual asks: ‘Will you at all times use the SLOW MOVING VEHICLE sign and warning lights when moving your equipment on the highway?’ The manual also recommends that the operator of the tractor ‘[u]se safety lights and SMV Emblem when equipment is being driven on the road or highway.’ But the relevant question is not whether the manufacturer anticipated that the tractor would be operated on public roads, but whether the tractor, or some aspect of it, was designed for such use. On this topic the submissions are bare. Nothing in the manual suggests that the tractor has any features designed to make it more road worthy. For example, there is no evidence that it came equipped with warning lights designed for safer travel on highways. In addition, undisputed averments show that Farrar’s tractor had ‘never had brake lights, tail lights, turn signals or other safety devices for highway use,’ and that it had always been outfitted with ‘field tires,’ rather than tires meant for highway use. Although the submissions describe the tractor’s current equipage, it does not address how the tractor was originally equipped.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP2385 Olson v. Farrar

Dist. IV, Monroe County, Ziegler, J., Sherman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Rice, J. David D., Sparta; Stoker, Michael L., La Crosse; For Respondent: Nichols, Jeffrey T., Milwaukee; Luell, Stacy Kay, Milwaukee; Mullin, Daniel K., Milwaukee

Full Text