Legal Definition of Livery ConveyanceAdmin
Private auto insurance rates do not take into account the dangers associated with driving a rental vehicle to the general public, such as a taxi or van. For this reason, in the past, private auto insurance policies generally excluded coverage for any automobile, “as long as it is used as a public agent or paint agent.” This public or painted exclusion was reworded for some time in the personal auto insurance policy to indicate that coverage does not apply to “liability arising from the possession or operation of a vehicle when used to transport persons or property for a fee.” Since this phrase has led to confusion and conflicting legal interpretations on the issue of coverage, the current Personal Car Policy (PAP) has reverted to the use of the term “public or painting.” This exclusion appears in all applicable parts of the FMP; Namely, the civil liability part, the medical payment part, the part covering uninsured motorists and the part dealing with the coverage of damage to the car of the insured. For a discussion of public exclusion or exclusion of liveries, see Personal Auto Policy – Part A. ¶ 16 Buttney cites Pender v. United States, 866 F.Supp. 1129 (Ed. 1994) to support his assertion that case law creates ambiguity.2 We conclude that Pender does not provide such support. In Pender, a U.S. Postal Service employee was involved in an accident while using her personal car to deliver mail on an assigned route.
As in this case, Pender insurance excluded coverage for vehicles “used as a means of public or painted transport”. Id., p. 1132. Although Pender acknowledged that the exclusion applied to the rented transportation of persons and goods, the issue was whether the use of the vehicle as a postman with certain routes, special instructions and restrictions constituted an indiscriminate waiting for public use. In this context alone, Pender Court held that the term “public or painting transfer” was “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” Id., p. 1137. With respect to the issue presented here, Pender J.A. held that the term applies to both the leased transportation of property and persons.3 Any insured person who uses a vehicle in connection with the collection or delivery of newspapers or magazines, food or other products for compensation purposes.
This exclusion does not apply to deliveries ancillary to the operation of an insured person. Public transportation—A vehicle used to transport passengers for a fee. 7 hours J2d car in § 35. A carrier whose owner offers public transportation to all people at a fixed rate. Stanley v. American Motorists Ins. Co. 195 B.B. 180, 73 A2d 1,…
Ballentines Law Dictionary 3. Buttney argues that separate language in the policy adds to the ambiguity of the exclusion of the term “public or livery.” We disagree. First of all, it refers to the definition section of the directive, which states in the relevant part: `Your covered car` means:… 2. One of the following types of vehicles on the day you become the owner:a. a private power plant for the carriage of passengers; Sphere. a pickup or van that:… is not used for the supply or transportation of goods and materials, unless such use is: (a) incidental to your “business” of installing, maintaining or repairing furniture or equipment; or (b) for agriculture or animal husbandry. Business” is defined as “trade, profession or profession”. However, the cited definition refers to the general liability coverage of the policy. This does not change the specific exclusion for vehicles used as “public or painted means of transport”. Similarly, Buttney cites another exclusion that indicates that no liability coverage is provided for an individual: the maintenance or operation of a vehicle while that person is employed or otherwise engaged in a “business” (other than farming or ranching) not described in exclusion A.6. This exclusion . does not apply to the maintenance or use of: passenger cars; Pickup or van you own; or `trailer` used with a vehicle described in points (a) or (b).
Buttney argues that if the Company had intended to exclude the passenger car from commercial use, it would have said so. In interpreting the language of an insurance contract, “the contract must be considered as a whole in order to give each of its provisions the meaning intended by the parties”. Stradinger v. City of Whitewater, 89 Wis.2d 19, 31, 277 N.W.2d 827, 831 (1979). When these exclusions are read together, it is clear that passenger cars are not excluded from coverage when used for their own business, unless it is for “public or paint” use. The two clauses are not mutually exclusive; On the contrary, the exclusion of the concept of `public or painting` constitutes an exception to the otherwise authorised use of passenger cars for business purposes. ¶ 14 The meaning consistently associated with “public or mediation mediation” is also supported by the dictionary definitions of the words that make up the term. In order to determine the ordinary and common meaning of a word, “a non-legal dictionary is more appropriate for advice.” Weimer v. Country Mut. In. Co., 216 Wis.2d 705, 723, 575 N.W.2d 466, 473 (1998). With regard to terms excluding “public or delivered”, the term “public” is defined, in the relevant part, as “[m]a property or use by the people or community”.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1056 (New College ed. 1975). ”Painting” is defined in the corresponding part as: “The rental of horses and carriages. The formal transfer of ownership, especially land, to a new owner. Id., p. 764. Finally, the term “transport” is defined in the relevant part as “the act of carrying, transmitting or communicating”. Id., p. 292. Accordingly, we conclude that these dictionary definitions, combined with the consistent interpretation of the term by the various courts, have given historical meaning to the term “public or painting,” a meaning that applies both to transportation for the rental of things and to persons. James Buttney, Northwoods Delivery Service and Auto-Owners Insurance Company (collectively, Buttney), appealed summary judgment declaring that the Insurance Company has no obligation to defend or indemnify Buttney, its insured, for claims arising from a car accident.