|Policy Unclear as to Status of Golf Cart Is Read in Favor of Insured|
|Description||Appeals court held that where a homeowner's insurance policy is unclear as to liability coverage for an injury caused by a golf cart to a pedestrian, where one provision appears to provide coverage and another provision appears to exclude coverage, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the insured.|
|Key Words||Homeowner Liability; Recreational Vehicle; Golf Cart|
|C A S E S U M M A R Y|
|Facts||Herring's son was driving a golf cart on a sidewalk when he struck and injured a pedestrian. His homeowner's policy provided liability coverage for injury caused by the golf cart when it was used for golfing, and also for injury caused by use of a recreational motor vehicle. Herring's insurer contended that the policy did not cover this incident because the cart was not in use for golfing and it is not a recreational vehicle. The trial court agreed, holding that a recreational vehicle (RV) is the kind that is used for temporary living when traveling. Herring appealed.|
Reversed. The policy states that it covers the "insured's use of a recreational motor vehicle." But the policy states elsewhere that a recreational motorized vehicle is not a motor vehicle. Hence, "it is not clear whether a golf cart qualifies as a recreational motor vehicle under the terms of the policy." In case of such ambiguity, "we must construe the policy in favor of the insured."
|Citation||Herring v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 795 So.2d 209 (Dist. Ct. App., Fla., 2001)|
Back to Insurance Listings
©1997-2002 SW Legal Studies in Business. All Rights Reserved.