Premium Only Content
Unambiguous Policy Language Applied
Only Vehicles Listed on Policy as a "Covered Auto" Are Entitled to Defense or Indemnity
Post 5198
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.
-
7:43
Insurance Law
2 days agoPlaintiff Representing Himself Proves His Client a Fool
51 -
LIVE
megimu32
1 hour agoON THE SUBJECT: I’m Back From Vacay!! Let’s Talk Halftime: Meh to LEGENDARY
197 watching -
LIVE
Flyover Conservatives
9 hours agoThe HIDDEN War You Didn’t Know You Were In - Linda Bamber Olsen | FOC Show
622 watching -
LIVE
Sarah Westall
3 hours agoThe Epstein Blackmail Problem & Industrial Lie Machine | Charles Goyette
251 watching -
15:21
Blackstone Griddles
4 hours agoBerry Cheesecake Blintzes on the Blackstone Griddle
249 -
UPCOMING
DLDAfterDark
1 hour agoTyranny At It's Finest - They Want Control Over Their Subjects - Gun Talk
24 -
2:39:24
Decoy
4 hours agoSurrendering over this??
31.7K10 -
44:08
Donald Trump Jr.
7 hours agoRegime Media Ignores Reality Once Again | Triggered Ep.316
204K121 -
1:23:50
Kim Iversen
6 hours agoEpstein Might Have EATEN PEOPLE
112K126 -
23:59
Jasmin Laine
5 hours ago"Poilievre Is Their Worst NIGHTMARE"—Trump THREATENS GOP, O’Leary Calls for SECRET Carney Meeting
13.3K28