Majority
—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, complaint reinstated and summary judgment granted in part to plaintiffs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in determining that, as a matter of law, an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) was not a motor vehicle within the scope of plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance policy issued by defendant covers injuries resulting from an accident with an uninsured automobile. As a matter of law, the coverage extends to all motor vehicles as defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 (see, Insurance Law § 5202 [a]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Wagoner, 45 NY2d 581 ; Matter of Askey [General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp.], 30 AD2d 632 , affd 24 NY2d 937 ; see also, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]).
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 defines a motor vehicle as every vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway and propelled by any power other than muscular power. The statute, as it existed at the time of the subject accident, did not exclude ATVs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 now excludes ATVs, but applies only to actions accruing after Jan. 1, 1987; the action here accrued on May 13, 1986).
Cases cited
- Country-Wide Insurance v. Wagoner 45 NY2d 581 p. 1031
- In re the Arbitration between Askey & General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. 24 NY2d 937 p. 1031
- Eaton v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board 56 NY2d 340 at 346 p. 1032
- Buffalo Columbus Hospital v. Axelrod 165 AD2d 605 p. 1032
- Allstate Insurance v. Shaw 52 NY2d 818 at 819-820 p. 1032