Court Opinion

ID: 9721685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:05:29.482578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.148294
License: Public Domain

WHELAN, J.
I concur in the result but for a reason different from that of the majority opinion.
The complaint for declaratory relief alleged Mrozek had been struck by an uninsured motorist operating a dune buggy off the public highway; it was alleged the dune buggy was a motor vehicle designed for and used off public roads, and that it was not an uninsured motor vehicle under the policy of automobile liability insurance.
The latter claim was based upon language in the printed policy form excluding from the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle”: “a land motor vehicle designed for use principally off public roads except while being used on public roads . . .’’In that respect the printed policy form differed from the language of Insurance Code section 11580.2 which provides: “The term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall not include an automobile owned by the named insured or any resident of the same household or self-insured within the meaning of the safety responsibility law of the state in which the motor vehicle is registered or which is owned by the United States of America, Canada, a state or political subdivision of any such government or an agency of any of the foregoing, or a land motor vehicle or trailer operated on rails or crawlertreads or while located for use as a residence or premises and not as a vehicle, or a farm-type tractor or equipment designed for use principally off public roads, except while actually upon public roads.”
The exclusions from the definition of uninsured motor vehicle cannot be broader than those stated in the code section, since the code section provides its terms are a part of every policy. (Ins. Code, § 11580.2; Modglin v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 273 Cal.App.2d 693, 699 [78 Cal.Rptr. 355]; Lopez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 250 Cal.App.2d 210 [58 Cal.Rptr. 243].) Those statutory exclusions will be strictly construed. (Val*118dez v. Federal Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Cal.App.2d 223, 227 [77 Cal.Rptr. 411].) In case of ambiguity in the statement of exclusions, the construction will favor coverage rather than a denial thereof. (See Interinsurance Exchange v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 58 Cal.2d 142 [23 Cal.Rptr. 592, 373 P.2d 640]; Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Lopez, 238 Cal.App.2d 441, 445 [47 Cal.Rptr. 834].)
It may be assumed the language of plaintiff’s policy reflects plaintiff’s interpretation of the statutory language. Under that interpretation, “a land motor vehicle designed for use principally off public roads except while being used on public roads,” includes “a farm-type tractor” as well as “equipment designed for use principally off public roads,” and “a land motor vehicle or trailer operated on rails or crawlertreads.”
That interpretation would make the word “equipment” in the statute at least coextensive with “motor vehicle.” The making of that interpretation suggests that in plaintiff’s opinion the statute is ambiguous as to the meaning of the word “equipment” found in the statutory exclusions from the definition of “uninsured motor vehicle.”
For reasons not all of which need be discussed, I agree with the trial court’s holding that “equipment designed for use principally off public roads” is not limited to “farm-type” equipment.
The word “equipment,” as used in the statute, is not, however, synonymous with “motor vehicle” or “land motor vehicle.” Specifically, it does not include within its meaning a dune buggy, even though designed principally for use off the highway.
The word “equipment,” so far as I know, is not found elsewhere in the Insurance Code. It is used frequently in the Vehicle Code, and in different senses. Since we are dealing with an automobile liability insurance policy, the Vehicle Code’s uses of the word may be appropriately consulted.
The provisions of the Vehicle Code dealing with a motor vehicle liability policy of insurance (Veh. Code, § 16450 et seq.) are in pari materia with Insurance Code sections dealing with the same subject. They furnish points of contact between the two codes that make it appropriate to consider like language found in each of them: “ ‘[E]very statute should be construed with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect. [Citations.]’ (Stafford v. Realty Bond Service Corp. ... 39 Cal.2d 797, 805; . . .)” (Stafford v. L. A. etc. Retirement Board, 42 Cal.2d 795, 799 [270 P.2d 12].)
Vehicle Code section 565 defines “special construction equipment”; *119“special mobile equipment,” defined as not self-propelled, is dealt with in section 575.
A dune buggy does not come within the definition of either sections 565 or 575.
Under the Vehicle Code also, “implements of husbandry” receive a separate defintion in section 36000.
Special construction equipment, mobile equipment, and implements of husbandry were all among the vehicles exempted from licensing requirements under the Vehicle Code in 1969.
In 1971 the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law (Veh. Code, div. 16.5, § 38000 et seq.) was enacted. It deals with a class of vehicles of which a dune buggy clearly is one. Among the vehicles to which it is declared not applicable are: “(4) Implements of husbandry.
“(5) Motor vehicles owned by the state, or any county, city, district, or political subdivision of the state, or the United States.
“(7) Special construction equipment described in Section 565, regardless of whether such motor vehicles are used in connection with highway or railroad work.”
Of course, “equipment” is used in the Vehicle Code in declaring those items with which a motor vehicle must be equipped to satisfy safety requirements.
The sense in which motor vehicles themselves are considered equipment may derive from the only dictionary definitions that seem relevant, from Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed., 1935): “(4) In industry, the physical facilities available for production, including buildings, machines, tools, etc.
“5. Railroads, cars and locomotives; rolling stock, as contrasted with the roadbed and stations.”1
In my opinion the word “equipment” in Insurance Code section 11580.2 was intended to apply to all those types of vehicles classed as equipment in the Vehicle Code and only to them. A dune buggy was not so classified and *120is a motor vehicle not among those described in the exclusionary provisions of section 11580.2.
If, arguably, it is equipment within the meaning of that section, then the section is ambiguous as to the kinds of vehicles described as equipment, and on that basis, alternatively, there would be coverage.

The third edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1966) is much more comprehensive in its definitions and perhaps, because of the number of illustrative quotations, leaves it to the reader to make his own definitions.