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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Denying a Claim in the State Gives Court Standing
Post number 5302
Posted on March 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In 5th LLC v. Kemah Capital Holdings, LLC d/b/a Kemah Marine and Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company, No. CIV-25-364-D, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (March 10, 20260
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 5th LLC purchased an insurance policy for its Moonen 83 yacht, covering the period from October 27, 2022, to October 27, 2023. On December 24, 2022, the yacht sustained damage due to seawater intrusion, which Plaintiff alleges should be covered under the policy. Plaintiff filed a claim that was denied three times, each denial referencing Kemah Capital Holdings and signed by a Kemah representative acting on behalf of Clear Spring Property & Casualty Company.
Kemah asserted it had an agreement with Clear Spring to market, broker, and underwrite insurance on Clear Spring’s behalf.
LEGAL ISSUES
Defendant Kemah Capital sought dismissal on three grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter ...
Rescission of a Life Insurance Policy
Misrepresenting the Use Of Drugs Makes Policy Void from its Inception
Post number 5299
Posted on March 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Rosalia Castillo Bucio, an individual; Hipolito Castillo Bucio, an individual No. 3:24-cv-01567-RBM-KSC, United States District Court, S.D. California (March 2, 2026) Primerica Life Insurance Company sued Rosalia Castillo Bucio and Hipolito Castillo Bucio, seeking to rescind a term life insurance policy issued to Gilberto Castillo.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
. The policy, valued at $614,000, named the defendants as co-beneficiaries. Castillo submitted an application on January 15, 2020, in which he denied any history of drug or alcohol abuse in the past ten years. However, after Castillo’s death on March 28, 2021, medical records revealed that he had used methamphetamine and cocaine prior to the application date, contradicting his representations. Both defendants subsequently filed claims for the death benefit, prompting...
Contract Breaches that Allow Multiple Different Grounds to Make a Policy Void
More from Excellence in Claims Handling Substack for Subscribers Only. You can Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Posted on February 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You’re reading from the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling until you reach the paywall. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the “subscribe” link below.
If an insured breaches one or more material warranties and increases the risk covered by the policy, the contract may be voided by the insurer, depending on the jurisdiction. It is, therefore, essential that every claims investigation include efforts to establish compliance with every warranty.
In Cummings v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 292 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 249 Cal. Rptr. 568 (1988), the Court of Appeal ...
