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.
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...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
