{ "id": 11199462, "name": "KRISTY LYN CORBETT, Plaintiff v. HAL SMITH, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Corbett v. Smith", "decision_date": "1998-11-03", "docket_number": "No. COA98-65", "first_page": "327", "last_page": "330", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 N.C. App. 327" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "242 S.E.2d 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "175" }, { "page": "175" }, { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551128 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565135 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 S.E.2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526382 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "156", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0153-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(3)(a)" }, { "page": "(b)(3)(b)(e)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 410, "char_count": 7360, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.779386173779556e-08, "percentile": 0.5320960797328338 }, "sha256": "9b0b88f72d3de95e207c811b9121399cc05db9a280c7fae651a8223c738a5dd9", "simhash": "1:9c8b7522802f305c", "word_count": 1187 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:28.584435+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge McGEE concurs.", "Judge Wynn concurred in result prior to 1 October 1998." ], "parties": [ "KRISTY LYN CORBETT, Plaintiff v. HAL SMITH, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nPlaintiff filed an action against defendant alleging that she was injured when defendant negligently caused his all-terrain vehicle (ATV) to overturn while plaintiff was riding on the back. The ATV was not insured by defendant, however, plaintiffs insurance with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) included coverage for bodily injury caused by an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle.\u201d State Farm was served with a copy of the summons and complaint against defendant and appeared as an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to the provisions in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3)(a). State Farm made a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the ATV was not included as an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d as defined by the State Farm policy issued to plaintiff and the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. Summary judgment was granted in favor of State Farm on 11 March 1996 and plaintiff gave notice of appeal on 2 April 1996. This Court found that the appeal was interlocutory and the lawsuit against defendant proceeded to trial. Corbett v. Smith, slip op. (No. COA96-633, filed 7 January 1997). Defendant failed to appear and judgment was entered against him in the amount of $425,000.00. On 5 November 1997, plaintiff again filed notice of appeal of the order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm and that appeal is now properly before this Court.\nPlaintiffs policy with State Farm insures her for bodily injury caused by an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle.\u201d On appeal, plaintiff contends that her policy is ambiguous as to whether defendant\u2019s ATV was a \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d within the terms of the contract and, because of the ambiguity, the interpretation of the contract should have been left to a jury.\nIt is well-established that \u201c[a] contract that is plain and unambiguous on its face will be interpreted by the court as a matter of law.\u201d Cleland v. Children\u2019s Home, 64 N.C. App. 153, 156, 306 S.E.2d 587, 589 (1983) (citations omitted). \u201cIf an agreement is ambiguous, on the other hand, and the intention of the parties unclear, interpretation of the contract is for the jury.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). The question before this Court is whether the definition of the term \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d within the State Farm policy is unambiguous as a matter of law and, therefore, whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment.\nThe State Farm policy language in question appears in \u201cPart C \u2014 Uninsured Motorists Coverage\u201d and states an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle does not include any vehicle or equipment . . . [wjhich is a farm type tractor or equipment designed mainly for use off public roads, while not on public roads.\u201d Plaintiff contends that the word \u201cfarm\u201d in the exclusionary language is used to modify the words \u201ctractor\u201d and \u201cequipment\u201d and the ATV is neither a \u201cfarm tractor\u201d nor \u201cfarm equipment.\u201d Plaintiff also contends that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.5 of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act was not incorporated into plaintiff\u2019s policy with State Farm and, therefore, the statute should not be used to assist in interpreting the terms of the contract.\nOur Supreme Court has found that \u201c[t]he provisions of the Financial Responsibility Act are \u2018written\u2019 into every automobile liability policy as a matter of law, and, when the terms of the policy conflict with the statute, the provisions of the statute will prevail.\u201d Insurance Co. v. Chantos, 293 N.C. 431, 441, 238 S.E.2d 597, 604 (1977) (citations omitted). This precedent, along with the fact that the exclusionary language quoted from State Farm\u2019s policy is identical to the exclusionary language included in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(3)(b)(e), supports the conclusion that any precedent which has interpreted the ambiguity of the same exclusionary language in the statute or another contract should be considered in this case.\nThe uninsured motorists section of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21 was enacted \u201cto provide financial recompense to innocent persons who receive injuries through the wrongful conduct of motorists who are uninsured and financially irresponsible.\u201d Autry v. Insurance Co., 35 N.C. App. 628, 632, 242 S.E.2d 172, 175 (1978) (citation omitted).\nConstruing \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d in light of the foregoing, we must conclude that the term is intended to include motor vehicles which should be insured under the Act but are not, and motor vehicles which, though not subject to compulsory insurance under the Act, are at some time operated on the public highways . . . [The] purpose [of the act] would not be served by interpreting the uninsured motorists provision so as to cover accidents involving motor vehicles not subject to compulsory insurance and which occur on private property. Such an interpretation would result in absolute financial protection against injury by motor vehicle, a concept neither contemplated nor intended by the original Act.\nId. at 632-633, 242 S.E.2d at 175.\nIn Autry this Court found that the three wheeled vehicle was not equipped to be operated on public highways, was not operated on public highways, and was not required to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Id. at 633, 242 S.E.2d at 175. Based on these findings, and in light of the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage, the Court determined the ATV was not a \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d subject to compulsory insurance requirements. Id. Accordingly, the Court found that the vehicle was not an \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d within the intended scope of the provisions of the insurance agreement or statute so as to entitle plaintiff to coverage thereunder. Id. at 633, 242 S.E.2d at 176.\nThe ATV in question in the case before us lacks rear view mirrors, directional signals, a horn, a speedometer, and does not have a differential on its back axle, making it difficult to drive on paved surfaces. The vehicle could not have passed inspection for operation on the highways or have been registered as a vehicle in North Carolina. There are warning labels on the vehicle stating that it is \u201cdesigned and manufactured by Honda for off road use only\u201d and defendant testified that the vehicle had never been driven on a public highway. In light of this evidence, and the precedent established by Autry, the term \u201cuninsured motor vehicle\u201d is not ambiguous within the State Farm policy and the ATV was excluded from policy coverage by the language which excludes \u201cequipment designed for use principally off public roads.\u201d The order granting summary judgement is\nAffirmed.\nJudge McGEE concurs.\nJudge Wynn concurred in result prior to 1 October 1998.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lucas, Bryant, & Denning, P.A., by Sarah E. Mills for plaintiff-appellant.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Steven M. Sartorio, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "KRISTY LYN CORBETT, Plaintiff v. HAL SMITH, Defendant\nNo. COA98-65\n(Filed 3 November 1998)\nInsurance\u2014 coverage \u2014 uninsured vehicle \u2014 ATV\u2014excluded\nThe trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for State Farm in a negligence action arising from an ATV accident where the ATV was excluded from policy coverage by language which excludes \u201cequipment designed for use principally off public roads.\u201d\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 11 March 1996 by Judge G.K. Butterfield in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 September 1998.\nLucas, Bryant, & Denning, P.A., by Sarah E. Mills for plaintiff-appellant.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Steven M. Sartorio, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0327-01", "first_page_order": 361, "last_page_order": 364 }