From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harper v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 7, 1991

Appeal from the Judgment of Supreme Court, Orleans County, Miles, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, complaint reinstated and summary judgment granted in part to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in determining that, as a matter of law, an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) was not a motor vehicle within the scope of plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance policy issued by defendant covers injuries resulting from an accident with an uninsured automobile. As a matter of law, the coverage extends to all motor vehicles as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 (see, Insurance Law § 5202 [a]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Wagoner, 45 N.Y.2d 581; Matter of Askey [General Acc. Fire Life Assur. Corp.], 30 A.D.2d 632, affd 24 N.Y.2d 937; see also, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]).

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 defines a motor vehicle as every vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway and propelled by any power other than muscular power. The statute, as it existed at the time of the subject accident, did not exclude ATVs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 now excludes ATVs, but applies only to actions accruing after Jan. 1, 1987; the action here accrued on May 13, 1986).

Because no specific exclusion for ATVs existed, we may presume that the Legislature intended that ATVs were not excluded from the statutory definition of motor vehicles (see, Eaton v New York City Conciliation Appeals Bd., 56 N.Y.2d 340, 346; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240; see also, Matter of Buffalo Columbus Hosp. v Axelrod, 165 A.D.2d 605). Thus, consistent with this State's policy of protecting its citizens from uninsured motorists on its highways (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw, 52 N.Y.2d 818, 819-820), we conclude that defendant is obligated to provide plaintiffs with uninsured motorist benefits for injuries caused by the uninsured ATV operator. Because this issue is solely a question of law, we grant plaintiffs partial summary judgment declaring that obligation (see, CPLR 3212 [b], [e]).


Summaries of

Harper v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Harper v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID HARPER et al., Appellants, v. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 7, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 1031 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Nationwide Ins. v. Riccadulli

Therefore, a person riding as a passenger on an uninsured ATV who is injured as a result of the operation…

Martinez v. Hitachi Constr

Plaintiff does not dispute defendant's evidence, through Ochoa's deposition testimony, that defendant's…