Opinion ID: 22025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: two-wheeled vehicles such as motorcycles and motorscooters; and

Text: 9 3. vehicles with more than four wheels, such as tractor/trailer rigs and flat bed trucks. 10 Farm equipment and forklifts are specifically excluded under Land Motor Vehicles. 11 The policy definition of land motor vehicle contains a three-prong conjunctive test. First, the vehicle can be any gasoline, diesel, or similarly powered vehicle. Second, it must be customarily used for transportation on land. Finally, it must be a vehicle for which the operator is required to be licensed. 12 The parties stipulate that Louisiana law does not require a license to operate a bulldozer. 2 Therefore, if we determine that the above provision exhaustively defines the term land motor vehicle, J.C. Penney is entitled to judgment. If, on the other hand, we decide that the provision is merely illustrative of what constitutes a land motor vehicle, Williamson prevails. 3
13 Little meaning can be gleaned from the word includes, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of both parties. J.C. Penney asserts that the policy's use of the phrase includes, but is not limited to with respect to specific vehicle types shows that J.C. Penney knows how to draft merely illustrative provisions, and therefore that the term includes, alone, warrants an exhaustive meaning. 14 The difficulty with J.C. Penney's position, however, is that the policy could have used the word means rather than the more ambiguous includes. Indeed, as Williamson points out, the policy makes use of the word means throughout other definitional provisions of the contract. Furthermore, the word including typically indicates a partial list. Black's Law Dictionary 766 (7th ed. 1999). 15 The same reasoning can be applied against Williamson. Thus, Williamson's own claim that the word includes is necessarily an illustrative term, because the policy also uses the word means, fails for the same reason--because J.C. Penney also could have used the phrase includes, but is not limited to but, significantly, did not do so. See id.
16 Instead, we resolve this case by noting that it involves a listing not of items but rather of conditions or requirements. Specifically, the relevant requirement is the phrase for which the operator is required to be licensed. 17 It does not make sense that J.C. Penney would have mentioned the requirement of licensing for vehicle operators in its policy if it did not intend for that provision to be mandatory. Therefore, because a vehicle must satisfy each of the policy conditions to constitute a land motor vehicle, and because Louisiana law does not require a license to operate a bulldozer, we conclude that Williamson is not entitled to recovery for accidents involving land motor vehicles. 18 In reaching this conclusion, we necessarily reject Williamson's argument that land motor vehicles includes bulldozers because bulldozers are not within the exclusion of farm equipment and forklifts. Observing that Louisiana does not require a license to operate farm equipment and forklifts, 4 Williamson argues that the exclusion provision would have no function, and thus would be rendered mere surplusage, were we to read the licensing requirement as mandatory. 19 Superfluous exceptions are commonplace, however, and have the effect merely of mak[ing] assurance doubly sure. 5 Thus, although a provision's meaning might be guided somewhat by the exceptions to that provision, the inference is a weak one. 20 Moreover, J.C. Penney uses the same policy language in states other than Louisiana. 6 Of course, that provision would not be surplusage in those states that require a license to operate farm equipment or a forklift. 7 In any event, it would be absurd, not to say unnecessarily burdensome on contract drafters, to apply the canon against surplusage on the basis of such subtleties. 21 In summary, although the policy definition of land motor vehicle is not plainly unambiguous, the only reasonable construction is that the requirements of customary use in transportation and operator licensing are mandatory and not merely illustrative. We therefore REVERSE and RENDER judgment in favor of J.C. Penney. 8 22