Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Insurance — farm policies — motor vehicle exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 31, 2012//

Insurance — farm policies — motor vehicle exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 31, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Insurance — farm policies — motor vehicle exclusions

A policy that excluded coverage for occurrences caused by motor vehicles designed for use on public roads is ambiguous, and must be construed in favor of the insured.

“Although we acknowledge that farm tractors may be used on public roads, that fact has little bearing on the proper analysis. The policy definition of motor vehicle does not ask whether the vehicle ‘is used’ on public roads. Rather, the question is for what use the vehicle was ‘designed.’ Mt. Morris’ interpretation would read the word ‘designed’ out of the policy definition.”

“The word ‘designed’ is not defined in the policy. To determine its common and ordinary meaning, it is helpful to consult a dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the verb ‘design’ as ‘to conceive or fashion in the mind; invent’ and ‘to create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect.’ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 506 (3d ed. 1992). The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines ‘designed’ as ‘made or done intentionally; intended, planned.’ Random House Unabridged Dictionary 539 (2d ed. 1993).”

“We conclude that the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ is susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning. The phrase ‘designed for use’ could refer to any conceivable purpose to which a vehicle could be put, and one conceivable purpose for a farm tractor is use on a public road. By contrast, the phrase ‘designed for use’ could refer more narrowly to the particular purpose for which the vehicle is contrived. The particular purpose for which a farm tractor is contrived is use on a farm, not a public road.”

Affirmed and Remanded.

2009AP2385 Olson v. Farrar

Bradley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Stoker, Michael L., La Crosse; Veenstra, Joseph G., La Crosse; For Respondent: Nichols, Jeffrey T., Milwaukee; Luell, Stacy Kay, Milwaukee; Mullin, Daniel K., Milwaukee

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests