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.
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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
