Title: Hajdarevic v. Agway Insurance Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Hajdarevic v. Agway Insurance Co. (2003-229); 176 Vt. 605; 850 A.2d 991

2004 VT 28

[Filed 28-Mar-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 28

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-229

                             JANUARY TERM, 2004

  Nermin Hajdarevic	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Caledonia Superior Court
                                       }	
  Agway Insurance Company	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 89-4-02 Cacv

                                                Trial Judge: Mark J. Keller

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident
  involving a tractor, appeals from the superior court's summary judgment
  ruling that the farmowners policy issued to the owners of the tractor did
  not cover the accident.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The facts are undisputed.  Walter and Mary Churchill own and
  operate a farm in Derby, Vermont.  Walter's brother, Melvin Churchill, owns
  and operates a separate farm in the same town.  On December 3, 1999, Melvin
  borrowed a tractor from his brother to transport hay from another property
  to his farm.  That day, while driving the tractor, Melvin was involved in
  an accident with another vehicle driven by plaintiff.  Plaintiff sued
  Melvin and eventually entered into agreement for judgment assigning to
  plaintiff any and all claims that he might have against defendant Agway
  Insurance Company, which had issued Walter and Mary Churchill a farmowners
  insurance policy.  Plaintiff then sued Agway, seeking to collect the
  $270,000 in damages found by the superior court.  In response to the
  parties' competing motions for summary judgment, the court entered judgment
  for Agway, concluding that the policy in question did not cover the
  accident.  Plaintiff appeals that judgment.

       ¶  3.  The controlling provision is contained within one of the
  "Incidental Coverages" of the Churchills' "Farmowners Personal Policy:"

    5.  Motorized Vehicles - "We" pay for the "bodily injury" or the
    "property damage" which:

      a. occurs on the "insured premises" and is a result of the
    ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of:

       1) a "motorized vehicle" if it is not subject to "motor 
       vehicle" registration because of its type or use; or

       2) a "recreational motor vehicle."

      b. results from:

       1) a golf cart while used for golfing purposes;
    
       2) a utility, boat, camp, or mobile home trailer, except 
       when the trailer is carried on, is towed by, or is attached 
       to a "motor vehicle" or a "recreational motor vehicle;" or

       3) a "motorized vehicle" which is designed only for use off 
       public roads and which is used mainly to service the "insured 
       premises."  However,this coverage does not apply to "bodily 
       injury" or "property damage" which results from a "motorized 
       vehicle" owned by the "insured," other than a golf cart, while 
       used for recreational purposes away from the "insured premises."

      c.  results from an "insured's" use of a "recreational motor
    vehicle" which is not owned by an "insured."

  (Emphasis added.)

       ¶  4.  The parties agree that the controlling provision is 5.b.3). 
  Thus, like the trial court, we must determine whether the Churchills'
  tractor is "designed only for use off public roads."  See White v. Quechee
  Lakes Landowners' Ass'n, 170 Vt. 25, 28,