Summary
In Metro. Property Liability Ins. Co. v. Kott (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 114, 115-116, 16 O.O.3d 139, 139-140, 403 N.E.2d 985, 985-986, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the meaning of "motor vehicle" as used in R.C. 3937.18 is defined in R.C. 4501.01 (B).
Summary of this case from West Am. Ins. Co. v. HolmanOpinion
No. 79-981
Decided April 30, 1980.
Insurance — Auto liability — Uninsured motorist coverage — Snowmobile considered a "motor vehicle."
A snowmobile is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of R.C. 3937.18.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County.
Defendant-appellee, Richard E. Kott, was injured in an accident while riding as a passenger on a snowmobile. Kott was insured under an automobile insurance policy with plaintiff-appellant, Metropolitan Property Liability Insurance Co. Because all potentially liable parties relevant to the accident were uninsured motorists, Kott made an uninsured motorist claim against Metropolitan. The claim was denied. Metropolitan thereafter filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the issue of coverage. The trial court granted Metropolitan's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that R.C. 3937.18 mandated coverage.
The cause is now before this court upon allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Keller Scully Co., L.P.A., Mr. Stanley S. Keller and Mr. William F. Scully, Jr., for appellant.
Messrs. Goldberg, Williams, Jilek Lafferty and Mr. David R. Goldberg, for appellee.
Appellee concedes that the language in appellant's policy, standing alone, excludes coverage for injuries sustained in a snowmobile. He contends, however, that R.C. 3937.18, which sets forth the required coverage for uninsured motorists provisions, includes snowmobiles within the meaning of "motor vehicle" and that such statutory coverage requirements are incorporated in, and become part of, the insurance contract.
R.C. 3937.18, provides, in part, that:
"(A) No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless an equivalent amount of coverage for bodily injury or death is provided therein or supplemental thereto under provisions approved by the superintendent of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom."
Appellant does not dispute that the uninsured motorist coverage requirements in R.C. 3937.18 are incorporated into insurance contracts. See Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Cas. Co. (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 161. It does dispute, however, that the phrase "motor vehicle" in R.C. 3937.18 was intended to include snowmobiles within its scope.
For legislative guidance as to the meaning of "motor vehicle" we must look outside R.C. Chapter 3937. The definition of "motor vehicle" most frequently referred to in the Revised Code, and the definition most amenable to general application, is found in the definitional provisions for R.C. Title 45, motor vehicles, and specifically, R.C. 4501.01(B). This section defines a "motor vehicle," in relevant part, as "any vehicle * * * propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power * * * except * * *." A snowmobile is not included within the enumerated exceptions. Since a snowmobile is propelled by "other than muscular power" it must, by definition, be deemed a "motor vehicle."
Accord, R.C. 4509.01(I) (financial responsibility); R.C. 4511.01(B) (traffic laws).
We believe that the interpolation of "motor vehicle" from the motor vehicle title of the Revised Code to the insurance title achieves a just result and is preferable to this court composing its own definition of "motor vehicle" in derogation of a legislatively sanctioned definition. Accordingly, to the extent that appellant excluded uninsured motorist coverage for snowmobiles in its automobile liability policy, such exclusion is void, and appellee is insured pursuant to R.C. 3937.18.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.