Opinion ID: 1788571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the alleged negligent act took place during the use of an uninsured automobile.

Text: ¶ 4. The uninsured motorist coverage provision of the Alfa policy provides as follows: We will pay damages for bodily injury to a covered person if the covered person is legally entitled to collect such damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured car. The bodily injury must be caused by accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured car. [4] The policy defines the word use to mean the actual manual and physical driving of a car. The word car is defined as a land motor vehicle with four or more wheels, which is designed for use mainly on public roads. ¶ 5. Our state law defines highway as follows: Highway means the entire width between property lines of any road, street, way, thoroughfare or bridge in the State of Mississippi not privately owned or controlled, when any part thereof is open to the public for vehicular traffic and over which the state has legislative jurisdiction under its police power. Miss.Code Ann. § 63-15-3(a) (Rev.2004). Motor vehicle is defined as: every self-propelled vehicle (other than traction engines, road rollers and graders, tractor cranes, power shovels, well drillers, implements of husbandry and electric personal assistive mobility devices...) which is designed for use upon a highway . . . . Miss.Code Ann. § 63-15-3(c) (Rev.2004). ¶ 6. There was no collision or impact between the vehicle belonging to the Ryalses and the MDOT vehicle. The MDOT vehicle was not being operated on a highway as defined by statute. Although the MDOT vehicle was designed for use upon a highway, it was not, at the time of the alleged negligent event, being used upon a highway. The Ryalses contend that MDOT's efforts in removing the dead pine tree from the roadside by the use of its hydraulic lift platform (also commonly referred to as a bucket) which was permanently attached to the vehicle, constituted the use of an uninsured vehicle. The use of the MDOT vehicle occurred several months before the fatal accident. ¶ 7. There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the MDOT vehicle was in transit or was involved in any mode of transportation, that an MDOT employee was behind the steering wheel, that the vehicle's engine was running, or that an MDOT employee was driving or using the vehicle for any purpose related or incident to transportation. Instead, the vehicle was stationary and off the roadway while the bucket was used to attempt to push the tree down. The vehicle's purpose, at the time in question, was to allow the MDOT employees to maneuver the equipment permanently attached, i.e., the lift platform, for purposes unrelated to transportation services. ¶ 8. We have previously addressed the distinction between the intended design of a vehicle and its actual use in determining whether uninsured motorist benefits are available, Dowdle v. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 697 So.2d 788, 790 (Miss.1997), citing with favor an unpublished opinion written by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Graham, No. 3:92-cv-161(B)(D) (N.D.Miss.1994), in which District Judge Neal B. Biggers found that a dragster which caused an accident was racing on a dirt track road and did not trigger uninsured motorist coverage, even though the dragster could be driven on a highway. Here, at the time of the alleged negligent act, the MDOT vehicle was used merely as a platform for the bucket which was used to attempt to push a tree down, not as a motor vehicle traveling on a highway. ¶ 9. Persuasive decisions from other states confirm the significance of the distinction between intended design and actual use of a vehicle. In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Yodice, 180 Misc.2d 863, 694 N.Y.S.2d 281, 283-84 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1999), aff'd, 276 A.D.2d 540, 714 N.Y.S.2d 715 (2000), the trial court held that the accident must be connected with the actual operation of a motor vehicle in its intended use as transportation: Not every accident involving an automobile concerns the use or operation of that vehicle. The accident must be connected with the use of the automobile qua automobile. The use of the automobile as an automobile must be the proximate cause of the injury. The inherent nature of an automobile is to serve as a means of transportation to and from a certain location. The accident in question did not arise out of the use or operation of the truck as a truck, i.e., as a means of transportation; it arose out of the operation of a business operating a ride, which happened to be permanently secured to the back of a stationary vehicle. ¶ 10. In D & M Logging Co. v. Huffman, 189 W.Va. 9, 427 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1993), the court held that the [u]se of the crane is not `operation, maintenance or use of a covered auto' because the definition of an `auto' specifically excludes coverage of the crane. The court determined that the only relationship to the automobile insurance policy was the allegation that one of D & M's employees negligently loaded logs onto a truck. The court concluded that the language of the insurance policy, considered with the statutorily-required policy language, did not extend coverage to the circumstance where the claim is based on the insured's employee negligent loading of logs by use of a mechanical device attached to the covered vehicle. Id. ¶ 11. As the Court of Appeals dissenters correctly pointed out, the Alfa policy defined use as the actual manual and physical driving of a car. It is clear from this definition that use required someone to be driving the vehicle for some type of transit or transportation purpose. We find that the circuit court and the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law in determining that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the accident arose from the use of the MDOT vehicle.