some insurance contracts make it clear that a tractor, since not used on the public road, does not qualify as a “motorr vehicle”. however, this apparently, is a unique life insurance contract with some unusual exclusions. I would bet the definition in the oontract is fairly clear as to whether there is coverage or not.
Ethanol intoxication? So was he breathing the tractor fuel fumes or drinking and driving? If it was the former, then I think the NRA is stretching the definition too far and will lose this one.
I’m betting my money that 12 reasonable people will come to the conclusion that if it has a “motor” that powers it, then it is a “motor vehicle” although it is not licensed for operation on a public road/highway.
Yet another case of a person seeking to profit from a lack of personal responsibility. He drove drunk, likely with the wife’s knowledge, now she wants someone else to pay. This is another example of why our legal system needs to move to a “loser pays” system.
I agree with Bob; the definition of “motor vehicle” in the policy is the issue; and not all policies define “motor vehicle” the same way. Without having sight of the actual language, everything is speculation. But, absent a law or regulation requiring the defintion of motor vehicle in the policy to match the state’s definition of motor vehicle in some other type of policy, the widow may be out of luck.
As far as the issue of ethanol intoxication is concerned, I am unaware of any evidence that one can inhale enough ethanol fumes from E10 tractor fuel to register a BAC level that rises to the level of legal intoxication. Assuming that the tractor wasn’t diesel-powered.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
some insurance contracts make it clear that a tractor, since not used on the public road, does not qualify as a “motorr vehicle”. however, this apparently, is a unique life insurance contract with some unusual exclusions. I would bet the definition in the oontract is fairly clear as to whether there is coverage or not.
Ethanol intoxication? So was he breathing the tractor fuel fumes or drinking and driving? If it was the former, then I think the NRA is stretching the definition too far and will lose this one.
I’m betting my money that 12 reasonable people will come to the conclusion that if it has a “motor” that powers it, then it is a “motor vehicle” although it is not licensed for operation on a public road/highway.
Yet another case of a person seeking to profit from a lack of personal responsibility. He drove drunk, likely with the wife’s knowledge, now she wants someone else to pay. This is another example of why our legal system needs to move to a “loser pays” system.
I agree with Bob; the definition of “motor vehicle” in the policy is the issue; and not all policies define “motor vehicle” the same way. Without having sight of the actual language, everything is speculation. But, absent a law or regulation requiring the defintion of motor vehicle in the policy to match the state’s definition of motor vehicle in some other type of policy, the widow may be out of luck.
As far as the issue of ethanol intoxication is concerned, I am unaware of any evidence that one can inhale enough ethanol fumes from E10 tractor fuel to register a BAC level that rises to the level of legal intoxication. Assuming that the tractor wasn’t diesel-powered.