834 N.W.2d 866
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Paskiewiczs sued Acuity for UM/UIM coverage after Michelle was injured by Alyssa Free operating a Kazuma Meerkat50-4A on the Paskiewiczs’ property.
- The Meerkat50-4A is a small, gasoline-powered four-wheeled vehicle designed for recreation, not a car.
- Acuity moved for summary judgment arguing the Meerkat50-4A is a child’s toy and not a land motor vehicle, so no UM/UIM coverage.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Acuity, and the Paskiewiczes appealed.
- The central issue is whether the Meerkat50-4A qualifies as a “land motor vehicle” under the policy, triggering UM/UIM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Meerkat50-4A a land motor vehicle under the policy? | Meerkat50-4A falls within ordinary meaning of land motor vehicle. | Meerkat50-4A is a toy and not a vehicle covered by the policy. | Yes; Meerkat50-4A is a land motor vehicle, so coverage applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 600 P.2d 751 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979) (undefined term 'land motor vehicle' includes minibike (50 cc) under policy.)
- Just v. Land Reclamation, Ltd., 155 Wis. 2d 737 (1990) (use external sources to determine ordinary meaning of terms in absence of definition.)
- Sohn v. State, 193 Wis. 2d 346 (1995) ('motor vehicle' is generic for self-propelled land conveyances.)
- Frank v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co., 198 Wis. 2d 689 (Ct. App. 1995) (policy terms and coverage analyzed de novo; ambiguity resolved in favor of coverage.)