[ PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 12062

____________________
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff

- Counter Defendant

- Appellee,

versus ANNA BEVILACQUA SPANGLER, RICHARD DALE SPANGLER,

Defendants

- Counter Claimant

- Appellants.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 1 of 232 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20

- cv

- 00360

- PGB

- LRH

____________________ Before W ILSON , J ILL P RYOR , and H ULL , Circuit Judges. J ILL P RYOR , Circuit Judge : Richard D. Spangler and his spouse Anna Spangler maintained a car insurance policy ( the “Policy”) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

. While the Policy was in force, Anna was involved in an accident in which she was struck and injured by an uninsured driver of an electric motorized scooter

. T he Spanglers made a claim for her injuries under the Policy’s Uninsured Motor Vehicle (“UM”) coverage. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that under the Policy the scooter was n either a “ motor vehicle ” nor an “ uninsured motor vehicle
, ” which the P olicy defined as a “ land motor vehicle

. ” State Farm sued the Spanglers, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment

. T he district court denied the Spanglers’ motion , granting summary judgment in part
to State Farm . The district court concluded that a Florida statutory USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 2 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 3

definition of “ motor vehicle ” resolved the dispute in State Farm’s favor

. 1 On appeal, t he Spanglers argue that because the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle ” as a “land motor vehicle,” the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “ land motor vehicle ” dictates the scope of the Policy, and under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, the scooter is a covered uninsured motor vehicle

. After careful consideratio n , and with th e benefit of oral argument, we agree and therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm

. We conclude that the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” more broadly than Florida insurance law requires

. Because a n insurer can provide more UM coverage than the law requires
, we decline to disregard the Policy’s broad er definition of uninsured motor vehicle in favor of a more limited statutory definition of motor vehicle.
I. BACKGROUND We begin by describing the relevant parts of the Policy

. We then turn to the underlying accident involving the scooter , including the scooter’s specifications , and the litigation that followed.

1 The parties agree that Florida law governs this diversity

- jurisdiction action involving the interpretation of an insurance policy issued in Florida. See Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp. , 778 F.3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 2015)

. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 3 of 234 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062

A. The Insurance Policy
State Farm issued to Richard Spangler State Farm Car Policy No. D 58098559 4 , which insured the Spanglers’ 2015 Nissan Altima. 2 The Policy included UM c overage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. Relevant to this dispute, under t he Policy State Farm would “pay compensatory da mages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle.” Doc. 1

- 1 at 2 5 3 (emphasis omitted ). According to t he Policy
, the “ bodily injury for which [ State Farm ] will pay compensatory damages must be [] sustained by an insured [and ] caused by an accident that involve s the operation

. . . of an uninsured motor vehicle

. ” Id. (emphasis omitted). In the section of the Policy pertaining to UM coverage , “[u]ninsured [ m ] otor [ v ] ehicle” was defined, in relevant part, as “land motor vehicle .” Id. at 24. The UM section of the Policy did not define “ land motor vehicle

. ”
T he P olicy ’s general “ Definitions ” section established definitions of terms used throughout the Policy. The Policy specified that the definitions w ere to be used where a defined term appeared in boldface italics. The Definitions section defined a “ [ m ] otor

2 Richard Spangler was the named insured party on the Policy. The Policyincluded coverage for the spouse of the named insured party if the spouse primarily resided with the named insured. It is undisputed that Anna, as Richard’s spouse who primarily reside d with him, was an insured party under the Policy.

3 “Doc.” numbers refer to district court docket entries. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 4 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 5
[ v ] ehicle” as a “vehicle with four or more wheels that[ ] is self

- propelled and is of a type[] designed for; and [] required to be licensed for use on Florida highways.” Id. at 4. T he term “ land motor vehicle ” wa s not defined in th e Definitions section of the Policy
, and the words “motor vehicle” within the ter m “land motor vehicle” in the UM section of the Policy appeared in plain typeface

. The Policy also include d an Amendatory Endorsement provid ing that an “ [u]ninsured [m]otor [v]ehicle does not include a land motor vehicle

. . . designed for use primarily off public roads except while on public roads.” Doc. 1

- 2 at 6

. I t is undisputed that

t he accident occurred on a public road.
B. The Accident with the Scooter While driving on a Florid a highway in the insured Nissan Altima
, A nna Spangler was struck by a driver operating a Razor Pocket Mod scooter

. The Razor Pocket Mod wa s a “ M iniature E lectric Euro Style S cooter.” Doc

. 35

- 1 at 19

. T he Razor Pocket Mod’ s top speed was 15 mph. It ha d a 250

- watt , single

- speed motor powered by two 12

- volt batteries, with a total battery life of 40 minutes of continuous ride time

. It was equipped with two spoked wheels with air

- filled tires. The Razor Pocket Mod had twist

- grip throttle con trols and a hand

- operated brake. It was manufactured with out a tail light, brake light s , turn signals, or exterior mirrors
, and n o such equipment had been added

. T he scooter had no vehicle identification number or license tag
, and it was not registeredwith the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 5 of 236 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062
As a result of the accident with the Razor Pocket Mod, A nna suffered serious injuries to her neck, back, and knee, with surgery expected in the future. Her vehicle sustai ned a cracked headlight and fog light , crushed front bumper and fender
, and cracked passenger side mirror

. T ragically, t he scooter’s driver , who was uninsured, died at the scene. T he Spanglers submitted a claim to State Farm for UM coverage in the amount of $100,000 as compensation for injuries Anna sustained in the accident. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that the Razor Pocket Mod was not an “ uninsured motor vehicle ” under the Policy

. C. Procedural History State Farm brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy did not cover the accident because the e lectric

scooter was neither a “ motor vehicle ” nor an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the terms of the P olicy

. The Spanglers and State Farm

cross

- moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage

. In support of its motion and in response to the Spanglers’ motion, State Farm argued that th e definition of “ motor vehicle ” that appeared in the general Definition s section of the P olicy applied to the UM section of the P olicy and
, under this definition
, the Razor Pocket Mod was not a motor vehicle or an uninsured motor vehicle

. State Farm argued further that the meaning of the Policy’s term

“ uninsured motor vehicle ” should be interpreted consistently with the defi nition of “ motor vehicle ” that appeared in Florida Statutes § 324.021, also known as the Financial Responsibility Law (“FRL”)

. Under the FRL’s definition of “ motor vehicle, ” State Farm argued, USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 6 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 7

the Razor Pocket M od was not a motor vehicle and thus was not subject to Florida’s UM coverage requirements

. In support of their motion and in opposition to State Farm ’s motion, t he Spanglers argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “ land motor vehicle ”

— the definition o f “uninsured motor vehicle” that appeared in the UM section of the Policy

— should govern the dispute . U nder the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, they maintained, the Razor Pocket Mod was an uninsured motor vehicle. The district court granted in part and denied in part S t ate Farm’s summary judgment motion

. In denying summary judgment in part, the district court concluded that the definition of

“ motor vehicle ” that appeared in the general Definitions section of the Policy did not define the term as used in the section concerning UM coverage

. In granting summary judgment in part, the district court nonetheless concluded that the Razor Pocket Mod was not

an un insured motor vehicl e. The court denied the Spanglers’ cross

motion for summary judgment for the same reason. The district court entered final judgment in favor of State Farm for the same

reason. To reach th e conclusion that the scooter was not covered under the Policy , t he district court relied on the FRL’s definition of

“ mo tor vehicle

. ” T he FRL requires every Florida driver operating a motor vehicle on Florida ’s public roads to maintain proof of “ the ability to respond in damages for liability on account of accident s arising out of the use of [a] motor vehicle .” See Fla. Stat. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 7 of 238 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062 § 324.022 (1) . Put simply, a driver of a motor vehicle must maintain liability insuranc e . The FRL defines the term “ motor vehicle ” as “[e]very self

- propelled vehi cle that is designed and required to be license d for use upon a highway.” Id. § 324.021(1). Considering this definition, the district court determined that the Razor Pocket Mod

wa s not a vehicle designed and required to be licensed for use upon a highway. Thus, the district court conc l uded
, the Razor Pocket Mod was not a “motor vehicle” and, in turn, not an uninsured motor vehicle, meaning UM coverage under the Policy was unavailable to the Spanglers. The Spanglers timely appealed

. II. STANDARD S OF REVIEW
W e review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo , viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non

- moving party. Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgmen t is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The interpretation of an insurance contract is a mat t er of law, which we review de novo

. LaFarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co. , 118 F.3d 1511, 1515 (11th Cir. 1997). As a pure question of law
, the interpretation of an insurance policy may be decided at the summary judgment stage. See Tech. Coating Applicators, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 157 F.3d 843, 844

– 46 (11th Cir. 1998) ; Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass ’ n, Inc. , 517 So. 2d 686, 686

– 91 (Fla. 1988)

. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 8 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 9

III. DISCUSSION On appeal, t he Spanglers argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in part to State Farm and in denying their motion for summary judgment because the court a dopted the definition of “ motor vehicle ” found in the FRL to define the Policy term “ land motor vehicle
, ” instead of discerning and applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. W e agree

. To explain why, w e must first determine the scope and extent of the Policy’s UM coverage. To do so, we start b y reviewing Florida’s principles of contract interpretation. We then look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “ land motor vehicle ” and apply this definition to the Spanglers’ claim. Lastly, we explain why the FRL’s definition of “ motor vehicle ” does not dictate the meaning of “ land motor vehicle. ”
A. Under Florida Law, the Term “ Land Motor Vehicle ” Is Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning

. First, we must determine the scope and extent of the Policy’s UM coverage. Under Florida law, an insurance policy is a contract
, and ordinary contract principles govern its interpretation and construction

. Am. Str ategic Ins. Co. v. Lucas

- Solomon , 927 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. The scope and extent of a policy’s coverage is defined by the language and terms of the policy, and where the language of a policy is plain and unam biguous, the USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 9 of 2310 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062 policy must be enforced as written. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists , 212 So. 3d 973, 97 5–7 6 (Fla. 2017)

. Although language in a policy is ambiguous if susceptible to more than on e reasonable interpretation, the fact that a policy term is undef ined does not necessarily mean the term is ambiguous. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp. , 720 So. 2d 1072, 1076 (Fla. 1998)

. Instead, when a policy term is undefined, “ common everyday usage determines its meaning. ” Nateman v. Hartford Cas. Ins. C o. , 544 So. 2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) ; see also Gov ’ t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Macedo , 228 So. 3d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 2017) (“ When a term in an insurance policy is undefined, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted) ). The Policy at issue included UM coverage. The UM section of the P olicy required State Farm to “pay compensatory damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to recover from the

own er or driv er of an uninsured motor vehicle .” Doc. 1

- 1 at 25 (emphasis in original). Within the Policy’s UM section, “uninsured motor vehicle” was defined, in relevant part, as “a land motor vehicle.” Id. at 24. The term “ land motor vehicle ” was not defined in the Policy.
The term “motor vehicle” was defined in the Policy’s general Definitions section but not within its UM coverage section. And the Policy specified that the general definitions applied only where the terms appeared in boldface italics ; the term “land motor vehicle ” was not in bold typeface or italic ized. We agree with t he USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 10 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 11

district court that the Policy’s definition of “motor vehicle” appearing in the general Definitions section does not define the term as used in the UM section. State Farm does not challenge the district court’s conclusion on th is issue. 4 Thus, the case turns on the meaning of the undefined term “land motor vehicle” a nd whether the Razor Pocket Mod falls within that meaning.
Faced with an undefin ed term in the Policy
, we defer to Florida ’s rules of contract construction , which instruct us to give the

term its plain meaning as understood by the “[person]

- on

- the

street , ” that is, the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. C astillo , 829 So. 2d 242, 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). To find the plain and ordinary meaning of a policy term, courts may “ look to legal and non

legal dictionary definitions to determine such a meaning .” Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. , 228 So. 3d at 1113 (internal quotation marks omitted) ; s ee also Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal , 622 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 1993) (“ Insurance contracts are construed in accordance with the plain language of the policies as bargai ned for by the parties .”).

4 Because State Farm has not cross

- appeal ed the denial of summary judgment on this issue, we do not consider whether the meaning of the term “motor vehicle” that appears in the Policy’s general Definitions section is incorporated into the Policy’s UM coverage section , and in turn dictates the meani ng of the term “uninsured motor vehicle” as it appears in the UM coverage section. Instead, we focus on whether the Razor Pocket Mod is an “uninsured motor vehicle,” which the UM coverage section defines as a “land motor vehicle.” USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 11 of 2312 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062

B. The Plain and Ordinary Meaning of “ Land Motor Vehicle ” Encompasses the Razor Pocket Mod Scooter

. To determine the plain and ordinary meaning of the term

“ land motor vehicle ,” we begin with the first word
, “land

. ” “ Land ”

means “ [a] n immovable and indestructible three

- dimensional area consisting of a portion of the earth ’ s surface, the space above andbelow the surface, and everything growing on or permanently affixed to it .” Land
, Black ’s Law Dictionary ( 11 th ed. 2019 ); see also Land
, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary , https://www.merriam

- webster.com/dictionary/ land (last visited Mar. 21 , 202 3) (“[ T]he solid part of the surface of the earth [.] ”). Put simply, land is the solid part of the earth. As such , the word “land” includes more than public roads and highways

. Next, the word “motor”: “[A]ny of various power units that develop energy or impart motion [] such as [] a small compact engine [.]” Motor , Merriam

- Webster Online Dictionary , https://www.merriam

- webster.com/dictionary/ motor (last visited Mar. 21 , 202 3). Last, “vehicle”: “An instrument of transportation or conveyance.” Vehicle
, Black ’s Law Dictionary ( 11th ed. 2019 ); see alsoVehicle
, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary , https://www.merriam

- webster.com/dictionary/ vehicle (last visited Mar

. 21 , 202 3) (“[ A] means of carrying or transporting something [.] ”). In other words, a vehicle is a n object that carries or transports something. Putting the words toge ther, a “ land motor vehicle ” is (1) a means of carrying or transporting something, (2) on the solid part USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 12 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 13
of the earth, while being (3) powered by a n engine that imparts motion. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kuntz , No. 2 : 19

- CV

- 00113, 2020 WL 7074554, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2020) (defining land motor vehicle as a means of “carr[ying] or transport[ing] something over the solid part of the surface of the earth while being powered by a gasoline engine that imparts motion”); Trierweiler v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. , 550 N.W.2d 577, 5 80 ( Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (determining the definition of land motor vehicle to be “a vehicle with a motor that travels on land”). This meaning, derived from dictionary definitions, comports with the term’s plain meaning as it would be understood by a person on the street.
Given th e plain and ordinary meaning of the term “ land motor vehicle ,” it is apparent that the term is broader than the term

“ motor vehicle” and encompasses more than vehicles designed for

use on public roadways

. In fact, the Policy’s Amendatory Endorsement states that “[u]ninsured [m]otor [v]ehicle does not include a land motor vehicle

. . . designed for use primarily off public roads except while on public roads.” Doc. 1

- 2 at 6. The Endorsement expressly contemplates that a land motor vehicle may be designed for off

- road use. Though designed for of f- road use, such a vehicle will be covered by the Policy’s UM coverage when it is being used on a public road (as the Razor Pocket Mod was here)

. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 13 of 2314 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062
Further, the term “ land motor vehicle ” appears in the UM coverage section without further qualifications 5 or statements that would limit the term to vehicles designed primarily for operation on public roadways

— despite the Policy’s inclusion of such limiting qualifications and statements elsewhere in the Policy. See Doc. 1

- 1 at 4 ( defining car as “a land motor ve hicle with four or more wheels, designed for use primarily on public roads ” (emphasis added)). Together with the fact that the Endorsement contemplates that a land motor vehicle may be primarily designed for off

road use
, the lack of limiting qualifications and statements further support s our conclusion that “ land motor vehicle ” has a broad er meaning than motor vehicle

. We now apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term to the R azor Pocket Mod scooter.
The Razor Pocket Mod was designed to transport a rider and personal items. It has spoked
, inflatable wheels made for traveling

on land . It is powered by two 12

- volt batteries that provide electricity to a 250W motor. Thus, the Razo r Pocket Mod scooter falls within the scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of a land motor vehicle. 6 Because the Razor Pocket Mod is a land motor vehicle
,

5 The Policy’s definition of uninsured motor vehicle includes qualificationsregarding the ownership, maintenance, and use of the vehicle that are not relevant here.

6 Our conclusion today is in line with other state courts’ interpretations of the term “land motor vehicle” as used in insurance policies. See , e.g. , Thedin v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. , 518 N.W.2d 703, 70 5–0 6 (N.D. 1994) ( concluding USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 14 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 15

we conclude it is an uninsured motor vehicle as defined by the Policy.
C. The FRL’s Definition of “Motor Vehicle” Does Not Dictate the Meaning of “Land Motor Vehicle” in the Policy. State Farm argues that to determine whether the Razor Pocket Mod is an uninsured moto r vehicle under the Policy , we must “determine[] whether it [is] a motor vehicle in the context of

. . . Florida’s FRL.” Appellee’s Br

. at 10. We disagree.
Florida’s FRL requires an individual who operates a motor vehicle on Florida’s public street s and h ighways to “show proof of financial ability” to compensate for accidents a s a “requisite” to operating a motor vehicle in Florida

. Fl a. Stat . § 324.011

. Under the FRL, Florida motorists must maintain liability insurance 7 when

that a farm combine was a land motor vehicle under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term even though a state statute provid ed a more limited definition of the term “ motor vehicle ” ); Trierweiler , 550 N.W.2d at 5 79

– 80 (concluding that a farm tractor was a land motor vehicle under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term); Paskiewicz v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.
, 834 N.W.2d 866 , 86 7– 68 (Wis. Ct. App

. 2013) (concluding that a child

- sized four

- wheel all

terrain vehicle operated by a three

- year -old was a land motor vehicle under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term) ; Colwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 600 P.2d 751, 75 1–5 2 ( Ariz. Ct. App. 1979) (concluding that a m inibike operated by an eight- year -old was a land motor vehicle under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term)

. 7 The statute provides other ways in which an operator of a motor vehicle may prove his financial responsibility that are not relevant here

. See Fla. Stat . § 324.031. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 15 of 2316 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062
operating a motor vehicle on Florida’s roadways

. Id. § 324.031. The FRL defines a “ [ m ] otor vehicle” as “[e]very self

- propelled vehicle that is designed and required to be licensed for use upon a highway.” Id. § 324.021(1). I f an individual operates a self

- propelled vehicle that is designed and required to be licensed for use upon a highway
, that individual is required to maintain liability insurance

. T he FRL works in tandem with Florida’s Uninsured Motorist statute (“UM statute”)

. Id. § 6 27 .727. The UM statute requires , in relevant part, that an insurer who offers motor vehicle liability insurance that covers bodily injury also must provide uninsured motor vehicle coverage
, unless the insured expressly rejects UM coverage

. Id. § 626.727(1). T he purpose o f the UM statute is to place a party injured by an uninsured motorist in the same position as if the uninsured motorist been insured as required by the FRL

. See Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 252 So. 2d 229, 237

– 38 (Fla. 1971) (“[UM coverage under the UM statute] is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the Financial Responsibility Law

. . . . ”); Schoeck v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 235 So. 3d 953, 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. T aken together, the FRL and the UM statute require that an insurer, at a minimum and in relevant part , provide UM coverage (if the policy provides bodily injury coverage) for “motor vehicle s” as defined by the FRL. See State Farm Fir e & Cas. Co. v. Becraft
, 501 So. 2d 1316, 1317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 16 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 17 State Farm argues that when a term is undefined with in a policy’s UM coverage , courts must look to the FRL. To support its argument , State Farm cites two Florida Supreme Court decisions : Grant v . State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
, 638 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1994 ) , and Carguillo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 529 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)

. N either Grant nor Carguillo change s ou r analysis , however

. Both decisions stand only for the propos ition that an insurer must provide UM coverage that is consistent with the purposes of the FRL and UM statute. Neither decision require s that an insurer only provide UM coverage for motor vehicles as defined by the FRL

. To explain why
, we briefly review the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Grant and Carguillo

. In Grant , t he issue before the Florida Supreme Court was whether a motorcycle was a motor vehicle under a car insurance policy

. Grant , 638 So. 2d at 93 7

. The insured’s motorcycle was not listed as a covered vehicle on the policy. Id. After an acciden t i nvolving the motorcycle , the insured sought UM coverage for damage sustained while operating the motorcycle. Id. The insurer denied the claim because a policy exclusion ba rred coverage for injuries that occurred while the insured occupied “a motor vehicle

. . . [that] was not insured for



### . . . coverage under [the] policy.” Id. (emphasis omitted). In response, the insured maintained that the motorcycle was not a motor vehicl e ; thus, he argued, the exclusion did not apply. Id.
The Florida Supreme Court began by reviewing the policy at issue. Id. The n o

- f ault coverage section of the policy defined the USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 17 of 2318 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062

term “motor vehicle,” and the preface section of the policy defined the term “car” as “ a land motor vehicle with four or more wheels
, which is designed for use mainly on public roads .” Id.(internal quotation marks omitted). The UM section of the policy, howeve r, didnot define motor vehicle or car, despite using the term “motor vehicle.” Id. The Court determined that the definitions that appeared elsewhere in the policy were inapplicable to the policy’s UM coverage

. Id. at 937

– 38. So , the Court was “compelled to search elsewhere for a sensible and appropriate definition” of the term “ motor vehicle.” Id. at 937. The Court turned to the FRL and its definition of the term. Concluding that the FRL’s definition of “ motor vehicle” comported with the plain meaning of t he term, the Court determined that the motorcycle was a “ motor vehicle ” as that term was used in the UM section of the policy

. Id. at 938. The dispute before us is distinguishable from Grant ; thus, we see no reason to incorporate the FRL’s definition of “ motor vehicle” into the Policy. In Grant , the policy’s UM coverage section did not define the term “ motor vehicle. ” The FRL readily defined the exact term at issue

— motor vehicle

— and so reliance on th e FRL’s definition of motor vehicle was “sensible and appropriate.” Id. at 937. Here, the Policy’s UM section define d the term “uninsured motor vehicle ” as “ land motor vehicle

. ” But the term “ land motor vehicle ” wa s not defined in the Policy ; t hus, unlike in Grant , the term at issue here is “ land motor vehicle .” As we previously explained, the word “ land ” modifies the term “ motor vehicle. ” See Trierweiler , 550 N.W.2d at 579 (“ We further note that the USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 18 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 19 exclusionary phrase defendant relies upon is ‘ land motor vehicle ’ and not just ‘ motor vehicle.’ The addition of the word ‘land’ must be accorded meaning [.]”). A motor vehicle as defined by the FRL is a vehicle designed for use on public roads . T he use of t he word

“ land ,” then, as an “adjective modifying motor vehicle

. . . must, by a plain reading, mean the vehicle anticipated [by the Policy] was more than a vehicle that would travel only on [public] roads.” Id.
at 579

– 80. The word “land” expands the scope of the term “ motor vehicle.” Thus, Grant does not control the definition of “land motor vehicle.” State Farm points to no provision of Florida law that limits an insurer to providing UM coverage for motor vehicles that fall within the FRL’s definition of t he term.
Like Grant , Carguillo arose out of a motorcycle accident. In Carguillo
, an insurer refus ed to pay its insured’s claim for UM coverage after the insured’s son was killed in an accident involving an uninsured motorcycle

. Carguillo
, 529 So. 2d at 277. The accident occurred on a dirt

- bike trail

. Id. The insurer denied UM coverage based on a policy exclusion providing that “ [a] n uninsured motor vehicle [did] not include a land motor vehicle

. . . designed for use mainly off public roads except while on public roads.” Id. Because the accident occurred off public road s, the insurer argued that the exclusion applied
, and the insured argued that the exclusion was invalid under the FRL. Id.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer

. Id. On appeal, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 19 of 2320 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062 “Whether a vehicle designed primarily for off

- road use can be excluded from uninsured motorist coverage because it is not a motor vehicle with in the definition of the [FRL ] ? ” Id. at 277 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). The Florida Supreme Court answered that the policy exclusion did not contravene the FRL or the UM statute

. Id. at 278. The Court explained that the UM statute is“statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the [FRL].” Id. ( internal quotation marks omitted )

. In other words, an insu r er is only required to provide its insured with the same protection “ as would have been provided if the tort

- feasor had complied with the [FRL] .” Id. ( internal quotation marks omitted ).
B ecause the FRL requires that a driver of a motor vehicle maintain a policy of liability insurance
, the Court had to determine whether the motorcycle was a “ motor vehicle ” as defined by the FRL. If so, the driver of the uninsured motorcycle would have been required by the FRL to maintain liabi lity insurance. And to satisfy the purpose behind the UM statute , the insurer would have to provide at least the protection the insured would have received if the uninsured motorcycle had indeed maintained liability insurance. If the operator of the insure d motorcycle was not required to maintain liability insurance under the FRL ( because the vehicle was not a motor vehicle as defined by the FR L) then the insurer’s policy exclusion , excluding coverage for the motorcycle, would not contravene the FRL or the UM statute. USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 20 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 21 Critically, the Court was not called upon to define any term in the policy. Implicit in its decision was the understanding that the motorcycle was a land motor vehicle. The question was whether the motorcycle, a land motor vehicle, could be excluded from coverage when it was not being operated on a public road. Th at question is not before us today. Here, we must determine in the first instance whether the Razor Pocket Mod is a land motor vehicle. Therefore, Carguillo is relevant to th is disp ute only insofar as it stands for the proposition that a policy exclusion must be consistent with the purposes of the FRL and UM statute

. Certainly
, Florida court s may incorporate statutory limitations and requirements into an insurance contract to determine a parties ’ contractual rights, Found. Health v. Westside EKG Assocs. , 944 So. 2d 188, 195 (Fla. 2006)
, but the FRL and UM statute pr e scribe only the minimum require ments

. Because State Farm has not defined the term

“ uninsured motor vehicle ” in a way that fails to comply with the FRL or UM statute , we see no reason to redefine a Policy term by incorporating a statutory definition. CTC Dev. Corp. , 720 So. 2d at 1076 (“ [W] hen an insurer fails to define a term in a policy, the insurer cannot take the position that there should be a narrow, restrictive interpretation of the coverage provided. ” (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although there is

“ no requirement that an insured be protected to a greater extent than that statutorily mandated ,” Carguillo , 529 So. 2d at 278 , there is no prohibition against greater coverage. If State Farm saw fit to exclude a vehicle such as the Razor Pocket Mod from UM coverage, it could have done so — provided that such an exclusion would USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 21 of 2322 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12062 not violate the minimum requirements of the FRL and the UM

statute. And the Policy’s definition of the term “ uninsured motor vehicle ” as a “ land motor vehicle ” complies with Florida law. “I t is well settled that, as a general rule, ‘ parties are free to “ contract

- out ”

or “ contract around ” state or federal law with regard to an insurance contract, so long as there is nothing void as to public policy or statutory l aw about such a contract. ’” Green v. Life & Health of Am. , 704 So. 2d 1386, 1390 (Fla. 1998) (quoting King v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 906 F.2d 1537, 1540 (11th Cir. 1990) ). Therefore, a policy may “provide [] all the coverage [a] statute demands, and more.” See Hill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 375 S.E.2d 727, 729 ( Va. 1989)(finding that, where an insurance policy broadly defined motor vehicle, a moped was a motor vehicle despite that the state’s “financial responsibility law” excluded mopeds from its definition of motor vehicle, reasoning that an insurer may offer “ broader coverage than the minimum prescribed by law”). To sum up, neither Carguillo nor Grant require s that the FRL’s definition of “ motor vehicle ” be incorporated into a policy that defines “ uninsured motor vehicle ” more broadly. An insurer may provide more cove rage tha n Florida law requires. Based on the plain language of the Policy, State Farm has done just that

— provided more UM coverage than required by Florida law. Thus, because the plain meaning of the term “ land motor vehicle ” includes the Razor Pocket Mod scooter , and we are unpersuaded by State Farm’s argument that the FRL’s definition of motor vehicle USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 22 of 2321

- 12062 Opinion of the Court 23 determines the scope of the Policy, we conclude that the Razor Pocket Mod is an uninsured motor vehicle under the Policy

. IV. CONCLUSION
T he district court erred in granting final judgment to State Farm based on its conclusion that the Razor Pocket Mod was not a land motor vehicle and in turn not an uninsured motor vehicle. 8 Accordingly, w e reverse the district court’s order granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Spangler’s motion for summary judgment.
REVERSED.

8 The Spanglers point out that if an insurance policy term is subject to differing interpretations, the term should be construed liberally in favor of the insured. B ecause the plain and ordinary meanin g of the term “ land motor vehicle ” is not ambiguous , this rule is inapplicable. Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co. , 845 So. 2d 161, 166 (Fla. 2003) (“ The lack of a definition of an operative term in a policy does not necessarily render the term a mbiguous and in need of interpretation by the courts .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 23 of 23