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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
