Boniey v. Kuchinski deals with insurance for ATV accidents. Boniey was injured while riding on an ATV owned and driven by Kuchinski. Kuchinski didn't have any insurance coverage, so Boniey turned to her policy with State Farm and tried for Uninsured Motorists coverage - the coverage you purchase to cover you if the person who injures you has no coverage. The circuit court (Judge Recht) granted summary judgment to Boniey, finding there was coverage under her State Farm policy.
The Supremes reversed, finding no coverage because Boniey had not purchased UM coverage applicable to off road vehicles - her policy specifically excluded them. She argued that ATV insurance was mandatory, and therefore State Farm should have included it in her UM/UIM coverage. The court also rejected this argument because mandatory coverage only applies to licensed and registered vehicles, and ATV's aren't required to be registered, the Supremes held that coverage could not be inserted into the policy. The binding precedent is set forth in three new syllabus points:
6. The primary purpose of mandatory uninsured motorist coverage is to protect innocent victims from the hardships caused by negligent, financially irresponsible drivers.
7. A motor vehicle that is not required to be registered and licensed pursuant to W. Va. Code §§ 17A-3-1, et seq. is excepted from the mandatory security provisions in the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law including motor vehicle liability coverage mandated by W. Va. Code § 17D-4-2.
8. A provision in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy excluding an off-road all-terrain vehicle or ATV from uninsured motorist coverage does not violate the intent and purpose of the uninsured motorist statute at W. Va. Code § 33-6-31(b) (1998).
well a big "duh" on that one....
ReplyDelete