Only Vehicles Listed on Policy as a “Covered Auto” Are Entitled to Defense or Indemnity
Post 5198
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6zn0p0-unambiguous-policy-language-applied.html and at https://youtu.be/gWtoQfgbsok, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
ATV Not a Covered Auto
In Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company v. Peak View Roofing Co., Jeffrey Pierce, and Ty Smith, Civil Action No. 24-cv-01300-MDB, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 23, 2025) resolved an insurance coverage dispute concerning the duty of the insurer to defend a civil lawsuit.
KEY FACTS:
Parties Involved:
The case involves Plaintiff Acuity, Defendant Smith, Defendant Pierce, and Peak View Roofing Co. (PVRC).
Underlying Action:
Defendant Smith alleges he was injured on August 19, 2022, while riding as a passenger in a 2018 Polaris Rzr ATV owned by Bluethread Services, LLC d/b/a Peak View Roofing, LLC and operated by Defendant Pierce.
Insurance Policy:
The Rzr was insured under the Policy as “equipment” rather than a “business auto”. Plaintiff Acuity sought a determination that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Pierce or PVRC .
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
Contract Interpretation:
An insurance policy is a contract that should be interpreted in line with well-settled principles of contract interpretation. Courts should give the words in the contract their plain and ordinary meaning unless contrary intent is evidenced in the policy. Courts construe coverage provisions liberally in favor of the insured to provide the broadest possible coverage.
Policy Terms:
The policy specifically states that coverage applies only to those autos shown as covered autos. The Rzr is listed as “Scheduled Contractor’s Equipment” under the Policy’s Commercial Inland Marine Coverage and is not, therefore, a covered auto.
Undisputed Material Facts
The Rzr was not listed on the Policy as a “Business Auto.” The Rzr is listed in the Policy as “Scheduled Contractor’s Equipment” under the Policy’s Commercial Inland Marine Coverage. The Contractor’s Equipment Coverage Form does not include coverage for bodily injury or create a duty of defense or indemnity on the part of Acuity.
ANALYSIS
Whether there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact depends upon whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or conversely, whether the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.
Here, the threshold question was whether the Court should look beyond the explicit terms of the Policy-which lists the Rzr as equipment-in an attempt to uncover some underlying intent to include the Rzr as a covered auto. The Court saw no basis for doing so.
While it is true that a court should look to the parties’ intent to resolve “ambiguities” in an insurance policy, this is not a case of ambiguity. Indeed, there can be no dispute over the meaning of certain Policy terms. The language is explicit and clear, the Rzr is covered as equipment. Courts may not force an ambiguity in order to resolve it against the insurer.
Based on the undisputed Policy language and declarations, the Rzr was equipment, not a covered auto at the time of the accident. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Pierce or PVRC in the Underlying Action.
Plaintiff Acuity’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
If the plaintiff’s wanted the Rzr ATV to be considered a covered auto they only needed to ask Acuity to insure it as such not as “equipment.” Since the plaintiff intended to insure the ATV as equipment accidents causing injury due to the operation of the Rzr there was no coverage for defense or indemnity under the auto liability insurance.
(c) 2025 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 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 the InsuranceClaims 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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
