Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Carner v. Farmers Insurance Co.
Citations: 3 Ark. App. 201; 623 S.W.2d 859; 1981 Ark. App. LEXIS 807Docket: CA 81-132
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; November 18, 1981; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
The case centers on the interpretation of automobile insurance policies held by appellant for three vehicles, following a claim for medical expenses after his son was injured while riding a motorcycle. The trial court denied the claim, ruling that the son was injured on a vehicle not covered by the policies, as it was not defined as a motor vehicle under the terms of the insurance. Appellant contends that the policies are ambiguous and argue that the term "motor vehicle" should be construed in his favor, asserting that his son's injuries should be covered since he was not operating a vehicle as defined in the policy. The relevant insurance provision states coverage for medical expenses for injuries caused by being struck by a motor vehicle while not occupying another vehicle. The primary legal question is whether the motorcycle involved is classified as a "motor vehicle" under Arkansas law. The court confirmed that, per Arkansas law definitions, a motorcycle fits the criteria of a motor vehicle. Additionally, the appellant argues the motorcycle is a "trail bike," not intended for public road use, thus not qualifying under the policy's definition of a motor vehicle. The court found insufficient evidence to support the appellant’s claim that the motorcycle was a trail bike. Factors considered included the vehicle's actual use, design, and common usage. The evidence indicated that the motorcycle was licensed for public roads and used as such by the appellant’s son, including commuting to school. Thus, the motorcycle was determined to be a motor vehicle under both the insurance policies and Arkansas law. The trial court's conclusion was upheld, affirming that the motorcycle involved in the accident is indeed classified as a motor vehicle under the relevant definitions, and the appellant's claim was properly denied.