410_C189

ATV INELIGIBLE AS COVERED AUTO

Automobile	ATV
Underinsured Motorist	Covered Auto

Jennifer Boniey was injured in an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) in which she was a passenger. The vehicle was owned by Brian Kuchinski. At the time of the accident, it was being driven “off road.”

Boniey was insured under two policies issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. When Kuchinski’s insurer denied coverage, Boniey filed a claim with State Farm for uninsured motorist coverage. State Farm denied coverage, stating that an ATV did not qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle while not operated on public roads.

Boniey sued State Farm for coverage. The lower court found in favor of Boniey; State Farm appealed.

The State Farm policy provided: “An uninsured vehicle does not include a motor vehicle...Designed for use mainly off public roads, except while on public roads.” The issue on appeal was whether this provision violated the intent and purpose of the West Virginia uninsured motorist statute. That statute provided, in relevant part: “[No policy or contract of bodily injury liability insurance, or property damage liability insurance, covering liability arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle, shall be issued or delivered in this state] unless it shall contain an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, within limits which shall be no less than the requirements of section two [§ 17D-4-2], article four, chapter seventeen-d of this code, as amended from time to time[.]”

In deciding in favor of Boniey, the lower court concluded that the ATV was a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that this analysis was flawed. Instead, the higher court focused on the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage. It was intended to place a person injured by an uninsured motorist in the position he or she would have been in if the negligent motorist had complied with the financial responsibility law. Specifically, the court noted that in West Virginia, the only motor vehicles whose owners were required to maintain a liability insurance policy were those vehicles required to be registered and licensed in the state. The court also noted that ATVs were expressly excepted from the requirements of registration and licensing. The court reasoned that because an ATV was not required to have liability insurance coverage under the financial responsibility law, it was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” within the meaning of the statute. It then concluded that a provision in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy excluding an off-road all-terrain vehicle from uninsured motorist coverage did not violate the intent and purpose of the uninsured motorist statute.

The decision of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Boniey vs. Kuchinski-No. 34152-Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia-March 24, 2009-677 Southeastern Reporter 2d 922