Title: Delli Bovi v. Pacific Indemn. Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

DELLI BOVI, EXR., v. PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY. 
DELLI BOVI, EXR., v. AUTO OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY. 
[Cite as Delli Bovi v. Pacific Indemn. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 343.] 
Insurance — Motor vehicles — Helicopter is not a motor vehicle for purposes of 
Ohio’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — Insurance providers 
may contractually limit uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to 
motorized land vehicles. 
(Nos. 98-21 and 98-23 — Submitted October 27, 1998 — Decided April 28, 1999.) 
ON ORDERS from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 
Eastern Division, Certifying Questions of State Law, Nos. 4:97 CV0094 and 4:97 
CV0147. 
 
Kirk J. Delli Bovi was killed when the helicopter in which he was riding 
crashed near Salem, Ohio.  At the time of his death, Delli Bovi had three insurance 
policies providing accidental death, uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”), and 
umbrella coverages.  Respondents Pacific Indemnity Company (“Pacific”) and 
Auto Owners (“Mutual”) Insurance Company (“Auto Owners”) were the carriers 
of two of the policies.1 
 
After the insurer of the helicopter denied coverage, Delli Bovi’s widow filed 
declaratory judgment actions in federal court, as executor of his estate and in her 
individual capacity, against Pacific and Auto Owners, seeking declarations that the 
policies provide UIM benefits for the losses sustained as a result of the accident.  
Respondents argued that the UIM provisions did not cover helicopters, because 
aircraft are not “motor vehicles” for purposes of UIM coverage.  Respondents also 
argued that their policies explicitly limited UIM coverage to “motorized land 
vehicles.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Noting that these actions presented “unique and potentially dispositive 
questions of law for which there is no controlling precedent” in Ohio, the United 
 
2
States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, certified two 
questions of law to this court pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII. 
__________________ 
 
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., Dennis E. Murray, Sr., Dennis E. Murray, 
Jr., and Leslie Blair Graden, for petitioners. 
 
Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, L.L.P., and Scott C. Smith, for 
respondent Pacific Indemnity Company. 
 
Fauver, Tattersall & Gallagher, P.L.L., John P. Gallagher and Kurt D. 
Anderson, for respondent Auto Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  The certified questions presented to this court are as follows: 
 
“(1)  Is a helicopter a ‘motor vehicle’ under Ohio Revised Code § 4501.01 
for purposes of the mandatory underinsured motorist coverage set forth in Ohio 
Revised Code § 3937.18?; 
 
“(2)  Does the word ‘land,’ incorporated by reference in the form Auto-
Owners policy, impermissibly modify the words ‘motorized vehicle’ so as to 
eliminate UIM coverage mandated by Ohio Revised Code § 3937.18?”2 
 
We answer both questions in the negative.  The first question requires us to 
determine whether the term “motor vehicle” as it is used in R.C. 3937.18 includes 
helicopters.  It is well established that “[i]n construing a statute, a court’s 
paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.   * * * In 
determining legislative intent, the court first looks to the language in the statute 
and the purpose to be accomplished.”  State v. S.R. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594-
595, 589 N.E.2d 1319, 1323.  It is also well established that absent a specific 
statutory definition, words are to be given their usual, normal, and customary 
meaning.  See R.C. 1.42. 
 
3
 
The General Assembly did not define the term “motor vehicle” as used in 
R.C. 3937.18 and other sections of R.C. Title 39.  “Motor vehicle” is defined in 
various sections of R.C. Title 45.  However, these definitions specifically indicate 
the statutory provisions to which they apply.  None refers to R.C. 3937.18 or to any 
other provision of R.C. Title 39.  All but one of these definitions specifically limit 
a “motor vehicle” to something that can be operated on a highway or public road.  
See R.C. 4501.01, 4509.01, 4511.01, 4549.41.  We have previously considered 
these definitions and their application to other nonspecified statutes.  State v. Heins 
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d  504, 651 N.E.2d 933. 
 
In Heins, we held that in the absence of a definition specifically applicable 
to the statute at issue, the term “motor vehicle” did not include a State Highway 
Patrol helicopter.  After reviewing the various definitions in R.C. Title 45 and 
reviewing the statutory scheme and context of those definitions, we concluded that 
the phrase “motor vehicle” is “generally meant to refer to land-operated vehicles.”  
State v. Heins, 72 Ohio St.3d at 508, 651 N.E.2d at 936.  The United States 
Supreme Court has also held that in common usage, the term “vehicle” “calls up 
the picture of a thing moving on land.”  McBoyle v. United States (1931), 283 U.S. 
25, 26, 51 S.Ct. 340, 340, 75 L.Ed. 816, 818. 
 
These cases are helpful but do not define the meaning of “motor vehicles” 
under the uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance (“UIM”) statute.  The 
absence of a definition of “motor vehicles” in R.C. 3937.18 and conflicting 
definitions of the term elsewhere in the Revised Code and in dictionaries of general 
usage create an ambiguity as to the meaning of the term “motor vehicle” in this 
context.  Ambiguity in a statute should be resolved by examining the legislative 
intent of the statute. 
 
R.C. 3937.18(A) mandates that an “automobile liability or motor vehicle 
liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed 
 
4
by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person” with respect to “any 
motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state” must provide equal 
coverage for damage by an uninsured or underinsured “motorist.” 
 
The legislative history on this statute is scant; however, the Summary of 
1970 Enactments, Jan.-June 1970, 108th General Assembly, at 94 (Am.H.B. No. 
620) states that the purpose of the original uninsured motorist statute was to make 
additional coverage available in “automobile insurance policies.”  The purpose 
statement refers to the “driver at fault” and victims who are “injured by a driver.”  
“Driver” is not commonly used to refer to an owner or operator of a helicopter.  
Nowhere in the legislative history is there a reference to helicopters or other 
aircraft, or to any means of transportation that cannot be used upon a highway. 
 
Further, in reviewing the legislative history of more recent amendments, it 
appears that this section is related to the financial responsibility laws in R.C. 
4509.01 et seq.  See Bulletin, 120th General Assembly of the State of Ohio (1993-
1994), S.B. No. 20, in 145 Ohio Senate and House Journals Index and Appendix 
(1993-1994) 171.  This relationship is further supported by the use of parallel 
language and terminology in R.C. 3937.18 and 4509.01.  R.C. 3937.18 specifically 
applies to any “motor vehicle liability policy” of insurance.  This same term is used 
and specifically defined in the financial responsibility statutes.  A “motor-vehicle 
liability policy” of insurance as defined in R.C. 4509.01(L) is based upon a 
definition of “vehicle” that is limited to “device[s] by which any person or property 
may be transported upon a highway.”  R.C. 4509.01(H).  Thus, although this 
definition does not specifically apply to R.C. 3937.18 and, therefore, is not 
controlling, it lends support to the argument that the financial responsibility laws 
and the UIM statute are related in purpose and that the General Assembly intended 
them both to apply only to policies that insure against liability arising from the 
ownership or operation of “vehicles” that can be used for transportation on the 
 
5
highway.  A helicopter cannot travel “upon a highway,” and we therefore hold that 
it is not a “motor vehicle” subject to a “motor vehicle liability policy of insurance” 
under R.C. 3937.18(A). 
 
Accordingly, we answer both of the certified questions in the negative, 
holding that a helicopter is not a motor vehicle for purposes of Ohio’s mandatory 
UIM coverage under R.C. 3937.18.  Because we hold that the statute does not 
require that insurance providers offer UIM coverage for vehicles that cannot be 
used on the highway, insurance providers may contractually limit UIM coverage to 
motorized land vehicles.3 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
1. 
A claim against J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company, the carrier of the third 
policy, was settled. 
2. 
We note that both the Pacific Indemnity policy and the Auto Owners policy 
use the “land” vehicle restriction somewhere in their policies.  We make no 
comment as to whether the restriction affects the UIM coverage in both, however. 
3. 
R.C. 3937.01 excludes insurance against “liability” arising out of the 
ownership, maintenance, or use of aircraft from the provisions of R.C. 3937.01 
through 3937.16, but not from R.C. 3937.18.  The dissent cites this exclusionary 
provision to support its contention that the General Assembly clearly intended for 
insurance against liability arising from the use of an aircraft to be included in R.C. 
3937.18.  However, this exclusion provides no such clarity. The aircraft exclusion 
in R.C. 3937.01 could apply to motor vehicle insurance policies under the 
designated sections, or it could apply to other forms of casualty insurance also 
covered under the specified sections.  At best, this exclusion provision may lend 
support to the argument that the statutory scheme is ambiguous and does not, on its 
 
6
face, define whether the General Assembly intended the UIM statute to apply to 
aircraft.  Once this ambiguity is recognized, we must still look to the legislative 
history to determine the intent of the General Assembly. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  The first certified question presented to this court 
is “Is a helicopter a ‘motor vehicle’ under Ohio Revised Code § 4501.01 for 
purposes of the mandatory underinsured motorist coverage set forth in Ohio 
Revised Code § 3937.18?” 
 
Chief Justice Moyer, writing for the majority, states that the various code 
definitions and dictionary definitions are collectively ambiguous.  See R.C. 
4501.01, 4509.01, 4511.01, and 4549.41.  I agree.  However, a headlong plunge 
into a legislative-intent inquiry is quite unnecessary.  R.C. 3937.01 states:  
“Sections 3937.01 to 3937.16 of the Revised Code apply to casualty insurance 
including fidelity, surety, and guaranty bonds, and to all forms of motor vehicle 
insurance * * * except * * * (C) Insurance against loss of or damage to aircraft or 
against liability, other than employer’s liability, arising out of the ownership, 
maintenance, or use of aircraft.” 
 
How much clearer could the General Assembly be?  Why rely on 
“ambiguous” code definitions and “scant” legislative histories, as the majority has 
done, when the answer is straightforward?  If “aircraft” were not regarded as 
included within the term “motor vehicle,” why then would the General Assembly 
carve out an exception for aircraft insurance from motor vehicle insurance?  I do 
not know, nor do my colleagues. 
 
R.C. 3937.01 applies to R.C. 3937.01 through 3937.16, not to R.C. 3937.18.  
Had the General Assembly wanted to except aircraft from the provisions of R.C. 
3937.18, it could easily have done so.  Given the proximity of the sections, it defies 
credulity to suggest that the General Assembly did not consider the impact of not 
 
7
extending the aircraft exception to R.C. 3937.18.  The majority would ignore this 
clear indication of legislative intent in favor of analyzing “the legislative history of 
more recent amendments” in sections that appear related. 
 
If you choose to ignore R.C. 3937.01, the other various code definitions of 
“motor vehicle” are ambiguous.  Therefore, the majority embarks on a global 
search of the code to find any definition of motor vehicle that could be engrafted 
onto R.C. 3937.18 to permit a negative answer to the certified question.  The 
majority chooses to rely on R.C. 4509.01(H), which applies only to parts of R.C. 
Chapter 4509.  I would rely on R.C. 4501.01, which applies to R.C. Chapter 4501 
and “Chapters 4503., 4505., 4507., 4509., 4511., 4513., 4515., and 4517. of the 
Revised Code, and in the penal laws, except as otherwise provided.”  R.C. 
4501.01.  That is, I would rely on the definitional provision that has the widest 
code application, not the one with the most limited.  R.C. 4501.01 even applies to 
the sections of R.C. Chapter 4509 to which R.C. 4509.01(H) does not apply. 
 
According to R.C. 4501.01(A), “vehicles” means “everything on wheels or 
runners * * * but does not mean vehicles that are operated exclusively on rails or 
tracks or from overhead electric trolley wires and vehicles that belong to any police 
department, 
municipal 
fire department, or 
volunteer 
fire department.”  
Respondents argue, in essence, that a helicopter cannot be a “vehicle” because it 
does not have wheels or runners.  They argue that helicopters are equipped with 
“skids,” which are not the same as “runners.”  However, Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary (1986) 2133 defines “skid” as “a runner used as a member 
of the landing gear of an airplane or helicopter.”  Based upon this definition, skids 
and runners are the same for purposes of this statute.  Therefore, a helicopter on 
wheels or runners is a “vehicle” as defined in R.C. 4501.01(A). 
 
A “motor vehicle” is defined in R.C. 4501.01(B) as “any vehicle * * * that is 
propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power or power collected from 
 
8
overhead electric trolley wires.”4  A helicopter is a vehicle as defined in R.C. 
4501.01(A) and is propelled by power other than the two types excepted.  
Therefore, a helicopter is a motor vehicle. 
 
The second certified question is “Does the word ‘land,’ incorporated by 
reference in the form Auto-Owners policy [or used in the Pacific Policy], 
impermissibly modify the words ‘motorized vehicle’ so as to eliminate UIM 
coverage mandated by Ohio Revised Code § 3937.18?” 
 
Because R.C. 3937.18 mandates coverage for all motor vehicles, as defined 
above, such a modification would impermissibly restrict the coverage and would, 
therefore, violate public policy.  See Horsely v. United Ohio Ins. Co. (1991), 58 
Ohio St.3d 44, 567 N.E.2d 1004; Ady v. W. Am. Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 
593, 23 O.O.3d 495, 433 N.E.2d 547. 
 
Accordingly, I would answer both of the certified questions in the 
affirmative, holding that a helicopter on wheels or runners is a motor vehicle for 
purposes of Ohio’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and that insurance 
providers may not limit the types of motor vehicles to be covered.  I respectfully 
dissent. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
FOOTNOTE: 
4. 
There are express exceptions to this general definition; however, none of 
them is applicable here.  R.C. 4501.01(B).