In Tennessee Farmers
Mutual Insurance Co. v. Simmons, No. E2013-01419-COA-R30-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.
July 15, 2014), the Tennessee Court of Appeals was called upon to interpret a
policy of insurance to determine whether coverage existed for a fatal accident
involving a four-wheeler.
In Simmons,
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”) filed a
declaratory judgment action against Judy Pauline Simmons and her daughter, Lori
Beth Simmons Casey, regarding an accident that occurred on April 18, 2010. On
that date, Ms. Casey was supervising as her daughter was driving Ryan Casey
around her mother’s backyard on a four-wheeler. When Ms. Casey went inside the
house to get a jacket, Ryan began operating the four-wheeler. Ryan apparently
drove the four-wheeler into the road, where it collided with a vehicle driven
by Roger Tipton. Ryan was killed in the accident.
Following the accident, Ryan’s father, Charles Casey, filed
a lawsuit against Ms. Simmons, Ms. Casey, and Mr. Tipton. At the time of the
accident, Ms. Simmons’ property was insured under a policy issued by Tennessee
Farmers. After entering a defense on behalf of Ms. Simmons and Ms. Casey, both
of whom were considered “insureds” under the subject policy, Tennessee Farmers
filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration as to the rights and
legal relationships of the parties pursuant to the policy and, more
specifically, whether the accident and the lawsuit were covered by the policy.
Charles Casey was allowed to intervene in the declaratory judgment action.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a declaratory
judgment, declaring that the policy provided no coverage with respect to the
subject accident or the subsequent lawsuit. Charles Casey appealed the trial
court’s ruling, asserting that the trial court erred in granting a declaratory
judgment in favor of Tennessee Farmers. Specifically, Mr. Casey argued that
when the accident occurred the four-wheeler was partly in the road and partly
on the insured premises and that the policy was ambiguous because the
definition of “land motorized vehicle” did not address that factual scenario.
As relevant to the issue on appeal, the subject policy of
insurance expressly provided that coverage was excluded for bodily injury
arising out of ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading, or unloading of
any “land motorized vehicle.” The policy defined a “land motorized vehicle,” in
pertinent part, as “a motorized transportation device designed solely or in
part for recreational activities while
off the insured premises, including golf carts, snowmobiles, dune buggies,
and all-terrain or utility vehicles…” or, alternatively, as “a motorcycle,
motorized bicycle, tricycle, three-wheeler, four-wheeler, or similar type of
equipment owned by an insured while off
the insured premises…” (Emphasis added).
On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals concluded that the
trial court properly interpreted the policy language as requiring the
four-wheeler to be off the insured premises in order to be considered a “land
motorized vehicle.” In so holding, the Court of Appeals held that the policy’s
definition of “land motorized vehicle” clearly required that the vehicle be “off
the insured premises,” thereby supporting the interpretation that the vehicle
must be completely off the insured premises at the time of the accident in
order to be considered a “land motorized vehicle.”
Finding that there was no proof in the record that the four-wheeler
was partially in the road and partially on the insured property when the
accident occurred but rather that the four-wheeler was in the road when the
accident occurred, the Court of Appeals concluded that the four-wheeler fit
within the definition of a “land motorized vehicle” pursuant to the clear
policy language. Because the policy excluded from coverage accidents occurring
during the use of a “land motorized vehicle,” the Court of Appeals concluded that
the trial court properly interpreted the policy language and did not err in
determining that no insurance coverage existed.
