When a UTV is not a Motor Vehicle
Post 4915
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5jjnc5-umuim-coverage-requires-accident-with-a-motor-vehicle.html and at https://youtu.be/FjWX4e8Nv7g
In Shaun and Jennifer Lopez, et al v. Erie Insurance, No. 23-ICA-338, West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals (October 16, 2024) agreed that a UTV is not a "motor vehicle."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioners, Shaun and Jennifer Lopez, and Keith and Melissa Chapman (“Petitioners”), appealed the Order Granting Summary Judgment. Petitioners contended that the circuit court erred in applying contractual terms from the insurance policy’s general definitions section of a utility-terrain vehicle (“UTV”) to the uninsured and underinsured motorists endorsement finding it did not fit the definition of “motor vehicle.”
In Shaun and Jennifer Lopez, individually, and as Next Friends and Legal Guardians of S.L., G.L., and J.L., minors; and Keith and Melissa Chapman, individually, and as Next Friends and Legal Guardians of H.C., a minor, Plaintiffs Below v. Erie Insurance, No. 23-ICA-338, West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals (October 16, 2024) agreed that a UTV is not a “motor vehicle.”
Petitioners made a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorists (“UIM”) benefits under Mr. Cox’s Erie Policy on October 22, 2020. The Erie Policy includes UIM bodily injury limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.
Erie denied coverage for the Petitioners’ UIM claims by finding that Mr. Kidd’s UTV did not qualify as a “motor vehicle” as defined under the Erie Policy. Erie filed a motion for summary judgment and the circuit court ruled in Erie’s favor.
RELEVANT POLICY LANGUAGE
The policy defined “Motor vehicle” as “any vehicle that is self-propelled and is required to be registered under the laws of the state in which “you” reside at the time this policy is issued.” (Emphasis Added)
DISCUSSION
The primary issue in this case is whether, under the Erie Policy, the UTV meets the general definition of “motor vehicle.”
Each exclusion category is predicated upon the subject of the exclusion being a “motor vehicle,” which is written in quotations and bolded. Each and every exclusion for “underinsured motor vehicle” begins with an explicit reference to a “motor vehicle,” which is modified in some way. The Court needed to determine whether the UTV is a “motor vehicle” under the Erie Policy.
In the Erie Policy’s general policy definitions, “motor vehicle” is defined as “any vehicle that is self-propelled and is required to be registered under the laws of the state in which ‘you’ reside at the time this policy is issued.” (Emphasis added.)
It is well-settled that contracts should be read as a whole. To be considered an “underinsured motor vehicle” pursuant to the UIM Endorsement, a vehicle must first be considered a “motor vehicle” under the Erie Policy’s general definitions section.
Coverage as an “underinsured motor vehicle” can only apply to the UTV if it is a “motor vehicle” as defined by the general definitions section of the Erie Policy. However, it is undisputed that the UTV here does not meet the second prong of the Erie Policy’s “motor vehicle” definition, the legal requirement that the vehicle be registered.
A claim for underinsured motorists coverage for injuries caused by an off-roading vehicle not subject to West Virginia’s registration and licensing requirements the UTV was not legally required to be registered (and thus be insured) and was being driven on a road that was closed off to normal traffic, the denial of underinsured motorists coverage does not conflict with West Virginia Code.
ZALMA OPINION
People often forget that insurance is a contract whose terms and conditions control the obligations of the insurer and its insureds. In this case the accident was caused by the a person operating an UTV which was neither licensed nor registered in accordance with the law of the state of West Virginia and, therefore, did not fit the definition of “motor vehicle” and there was no coverage under the UIM coverage of the policy.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
