Motorized Vehicle Exclusion Applied To Riding Mower Injury

Personal Liability	Exclusion–Motor Vehicle
Injury	Exclusion Exception

Henry Stezenski (Stezenski) owned two houses in Appleton, Wisconsin. He lived in one and rented the other to Brent Roberts (Roberts) and Jennifer Stoeger (Stroeger). On August 31, 2002, Christopher Quella (Quella), fifteen years of age at the time, was cutting the rental property’s lawn using a riding lawnmower. While walking nearby, Amy Varda (Varda) was hit in the eye by a rock thrown by the riding mower.

Varda sued Quella, Quella’s mother and their insurance company, Acuity Mutual Insurance Company (Acuity); Stezenski and his insurance company, Ellington Mutual Insurance Company (Ellington); and Roberts and Stroeger. In response, Ellington and Acuity filed motions for summary judgment on coverage issues. The trial court granted Acuity's motion and denied Ellington's. Ellington appealed the non-final order, and Varda cross-appealed the summary judgment in favor of Acuity.

With respect to the Ellington policy, the only question was if Quella qualified as an insured. Ellington argued that the trial court erred in concluding that Quella was an insured under the Strezenski policy because he was performing domestic duties. The appellate court agreed with the trial court, holding that Quella qualified as an insured, particularly since the Strezenski policy listed the rental property (the accident site) as an insured premises.

On cross-appeal, Varda argued that the trial court erred in determining that the Quellas' Acuity policy did not owe coverage because Acuity’s motor vehicles and motorized land conveyances exclusion was ambiguous and ran counter to reasonable coverage expectations. The appellate court disagreed. It determined that the policy exclusions for motorized vehicles and motorized land conveyances unambiguously applied to the riding mower.

The court also determined that an exception to the exclusion for vehicles designed for recreational use off public roads did not apply to riding mowers. It stated that riding mowers were not designed for recreation, no matter how much pleasure the operator derived from mowing. It was also determined that the injury was caused by the operation of the mower cutting deck and not the mower itself. However, this did not make the injuries subject to coverage under the independent concurrent use rule. If the excluded risk was that the riding mower did not operate, the cutting deck could not have turned the stone into a dangerous projectile.

The judgment and orders of the trial court were affirmed.

Amy N. Varda, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, OSF Healthplans, Involuntary-Plaintiff, v. Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Cross-Respondent, Brent Roberts, Jennifer L. Stoeger and ABC Insurance Company, Defendants-Cross-Respondents, Ellington Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant, v. Luane Quella and Christopher Quella, Third-Party Defendants-Cross- Respondents. Wisconsin Court of Appeals. No. 2004AP2853. Filed June 1, 2005. Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit court, Outagamie County. Affirmed. 2005 CCH Personal and Commercial Liability Cases. Paragraph 1079.