holding that an insurance-policy provision defining a motor vehicle to include a trailer designed for travel on public roads and subject to motor vehicle registration means that the trailer must meet both requirements to fit the definition
How later courts described this case
- holding that an insurance-policy provision defining a motor vehicle to include a trailer designed for travel on public roads and subject to motor vehicle registration means that the trailer must meet both requirements to fit the definition
- noting that when a phrase is conjunctive, it requires proof of both clauses
- “Provisions of an insurance policy are construed most strongly against the insurance company, which prepared it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Larry D. Vaught, Judge, dissenting. I dissent because I believe that the trial judge was correct and should be affirmed. The majority misconstrues the decision below by holding that the policy must be ambiguous because the parties relied on extrinsic evidence to support their arguments. While evidence was presented in support of cross-motions for summary judgment, there is no indication that the trial court considered anything other than the policy itself in ruling that the trailer was covered by the exclusion. Because the policy was not ambiguous, and the trailer was “designed for travel on the public roads and is subject to registration,” I would affirm.
The facts are set forth in the majority opinion and are not in issue. No one disputes the nature of the vehicle in question; it is a camper trailer and fits the policy definition of a semi-trailer, which is excluded if designed for travel on the public roads and subject to registration. When the character of a vehicle is in question, courts must consider “(1) the vehicle’s actual use, (2) the design and intended use by the manufacturer!]] and (3) how it is commonly used.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Worthey, 314 Ark. 185, 189 , 861 S.W.2d 307, 309 (1993). The undisputed facts available to the trial court were sufficient to conclude that the trailer was used on the road, was designed to be used on the road, and was commonly used on the road.
The deposition testimony of Mr. Porter of the DFA is not dispositive of the issue of whether the vehicle is subject to registration. His testimony only indicates that DFA would not have cited the vehicle’s owner for failure to register when the vehicle was being used as a residence. It does not mean that the vehicle was not subject to registration if used on the road. If the appellants’ interpretation of Mr. Porter’s testimony were accepted, then there could never be a vehicle subject to registration and excluded from policy coverage unless the accident actually occurred while the vehicle was being used on the road, and that is not the nature of the exclusion. The decision of the trial court did not refer to Mr. Porter’s testimony, and the testimony was not necessary to the court’s ruling. The court interpreted the policy as a matter of law and correctly held that the vehicle was excluded as a motor vehicle. Therefore, I would affirm.