The Supreme Court of Kentucky has ruled that injuries suffered in a collision between a motorcycle and a horse-drawn buggy failed to trigger the uninsured motorists coverage in the insurance policy. The case is Davis v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. 2020-SC-0168-DG, 2021 Ky. LEXIS 151 (June 17, 2021).
While driving her motorcycle, Linda Davis, the plaintiff, encountered a horse-drawn buggy operated by a man named Danny Gingerich. As Davis approached the buggy, the horse became spooked and jumped into oncoming traffic. Davis collided with the horse and was gravely injured.
At the time of the crash, Davis's motorcycle was insured by Progressive. As members of the local Amish community neither Gingerich or his father, Abe, carried any form of insurance on the buggy or on their farm. Progressive denied the claim under the uninsured motorist provision of Davis's motorcycle coverage on the grounds that a horse-drawn buggy was neither a "motor vehicle" nor a "trailer of any type" as is specifically defined by the policy language.
Davis sued seeking to enforce the uninsured motorist provision in the policy. Progressive filed and was granted a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the horse-drawn buggy did not qualify as a "motor vehicle" or a "trailer of any type." The Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal, Davis brought two primary arguments. The first one was based upon the following language.
If you pay the premium for this coverage, we will pay for damages that an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury;
1. sustained by an insured person;
2. caused by an accident; and
3. arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.
"Uninsured motor vehicle" was defined by Progressive in the policy as "mean[ing] a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type[.]" Davis claimed that a horse-drawn buggy qualifies as a " trailer of any type."
In reviewing this argument the Supreme Court of Kentucky noted that "uninsured motor vehicle" must be interpreted as a lay consumer would understand the policy. The Court disagreed with the conclusion that a buggy is a trailer for several reasons, including how a horse and buggy operate as a single unit. Nothing trails because a horse and buggy are integral to one another. The Court also noted that "[t]he word "trailer" is defined generally as meaning one who or that which trails. The term is applied to a variety of vehicles, and in the motor vehicle law a trailer is a separate vehicle which is not driven or propelled by its own power, but which, in order to be useful, must be attached to, and become a part of another vehicle." By contrast, a buggy is a "small, light, four-wheeled horse-drawn carriage."
Davis's second argument, that the buggy is a motor vehicle, also fails for the same reasons the initial argument failed. A buggy is simply not a motor vehicle, which is defined as "any vehicle which transports persons or property upon the public highways of the commonwealth, propelled by other than muscular power," KRS 304.39-020.
Davis also submitted a public policy argument, asserting that she reasonably expected the horses and buggies she encountered on the highway to be subject to the same rules and regulations as other vehicles operating on public roads. She concedes, however, that by the policy's own terms her position is counterintuitive.
The Court found that Davis failed to present an ambiguity in the contract, or show evidence of a reasonable expectation of coverage, so Progressive's denial of her claim was appropriate, and the decision of the trial court was affirmed.