Mobile Equipment Versus Auto
A pickup truck passenger who was hit and run over by the truck at a hunting club brought an action against the driver, the hunting club, and others. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurer and the injured person appealed. This case is Pritchard v. Shelter Insurance Company, 978 So. 2d 502 (2008).
Pritchard was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by Pendleton. They were at the Whitetail Hunting Club when Pritchard exited the pickup. Pendleton heard a call on his CB radio that some of the hunting dogs had found a deer and he hurriedly entered his vehicle. He drove forward and struck Pritchard, causing serious physical injuries. Pritchard sued Pendleton and the hunting club.
Scottsdale Insurance Company provided insurance coverage for the club and its members under a commercial general liability policy. This policy contained an auto exclusion that prevented coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, or use of any auto owned or operated by an insured. The term "auto" was defined as a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the auto exclusion precluded any coverage for Pritchard's claims. Pritchard argued that the policy contained an ambiguity in the language of the auto exclusion when read together with the definition of mobile equipment (the policy defined mobile equipment to include vehicles designed for use principally off public roads). She claimed that the policy provide coverage because the pickup could be considered mobile equipment under the ambiguous language of the exclusion clause.
The driver of the truck stated that his vehicle remained at the hunting club during the hunting season and that he used the truck only for hunting. He also said that, even though the truck was insured, he transported it on a trailer to and from the hunting camp. Pritchard, Pendleton and the club argued that the truck was mobile equipment because the four-wheel drive vehicle was capable of off-road use and since it was used only for hunting purposes, the vehicle should be considered as designed for use principally off public roads.
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, noted that the policy defined an auto as a vehicle designed for travel on public roads. Considering the evidence that Pendleton's truck was previously registered and inspected for such travel and was covered by an auto insurance policy, the court said that the pickup satisfied the definition of an auto. The court concluded that although Pendleton used his pickup truck primarily for off-road purposes, the vehicle was not a vehicle designed "principally" for use off public roads. Therefore, the pickup did not qualify as mobile equipment. The opinion of the trial court was affirmed.
Editor's Note: The claimant in this case presented an interesting argument that a pickup truck was mobile equipment and not an auto. She maintained that just because the truck was used off-road, that made it a vehicle designed for use principally off public roads and thus, mobile equipment as defined in the liability policy. However, the court found that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that even though the driver used the pickup as an off-road vehicle, it was not actually designed for use principally off public roads.
The key distinction here is "use" as opposed to "designed for use principally". The insured driver "used" the pickup for off-road purposes, but the vehicle was not "designed for use principally" for such purposes. The wording of the mobile equipment definition was clear and unambiguous to the court when compared to the facts.