Court Opinion

ID: 9517111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:03:57.670411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:22.702000
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE INGLIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. It is uncontested that the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike is “designed for use mainly off public roads.” It is further uncontested that at the time of the accident the KX 125 dirt bike was not on a public road. Plaintiff argues, however, that the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike is licensable for public road use. Summary judgment should be granted where no genuine issue of material fact remains unresolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (111. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2— 1005(c).) Because the interpretation of insurance contracts is governed by the rules for interpreting contracts generally, whether a policy is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide. Dash Messenger Service, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1991), 221 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 1010. All of the evidence in support of summary judgment leads to the conclusion that the dirt bike cannot be licensed for public road use within the meaning and intent of the policy. The testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Frank Blazevich, does not create a material question of fact which precludes summary judgment. In his affidavit, Blazevich states that the KX 125 dirt bike was an off-road vehicle “which can be with minor modifications driven on public roads, but cannot be driven on highways.” (Emphasis in original.) Blazevich agreed that “there are some roads even with the modification *** where the KX-125 could not be operated.” He stated that only a vehicle with a minimum of 150 ccs could legally be driven on a highway. He then conceded that the term “highway” encompasses the term “road.” Furthermore, the manufacturer’s statement of origin on this KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike clearly states, “THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED FOR OFF-THE-HIGHWAY USE ONLY IN SANCTIONED COMPETITION EVENTS UPON A CLOSED COURSE.” In addition, there was a sticker on the fork and on top of the gas tank instructing that the KX 125 dirt bike was for off-road use only. According to defendant’s witness, the modifications necessary to legally drive the KX 125 dirt bike on a public road would require installation of headlights, turn signals, a turn signal lamp, brake lights, a horn, a license bracket for holding a vehicle license, a mirror, and foot pegs. David Dolinar testified that it would also be necessary to install a battery to furnish the essential power to operate the various lights and turn signals. In order to make the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike licensable, it would require “starting over from a pile of parts.” Plaintiff has convinced the majority that if the remote possibility existed that the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike could somehow, with extensive modifications, be built to be legally driven on a public road, then it is “able to be licensed for public road use.” In essence, the majority has created an ambiguity in the policy language where none exists. I believe the trial judge was correct. There is no ambiguity in the phrase “able to be licensed for public road use.” In this case, there has been no evidence offered which raises a question of fact that the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike can be licensed to legally drive upon all public roads. Plaintiff’s expert stated that even after substantial modification the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike is unable to be legally driven on all public roads. The policy in question expressly does not include within the definitions a vehicle such as the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike unless it is actually being operated on a public road at the time of the occurrence giving rise to the claim. Clearly, it was not the intention to provide coverage for off-road riding of dirt bikes for the reason that the risk is clearly greater than the use of a motorcycle on the public roads. Although plaintiff argues that the KX 125 Kawasaki dirt bike could somehow be modified for limited road usage, it had not been modified on the date of the accident. Moreover, Dolinar, the dirt bike’s owner and the driver at the time of the accident, neither applied for a license nor intended to license the dirt bike. Dolinar was only 15 years old at the time of the accident and could not legally drive any vehicle upon the public roads. (See 111. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 951/2, pars. 6 — 103, 6 — 105.) Dolinar’s KX 125 dirt bike could not be made licensable for use on the public roads by him on the date of the accident. Accordingly, I dissent.