Background
Roger Saxon sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision while operating a county-owned Kubota tractor on Georgia Route 67. At the time, Saxon was working for the Jenkins County Road Department and using the tractor to haul a “bushhog” grass mower for roadside maintenance. Saxon and co-plaintiff Vickie Saxon sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Jenkins County’s insurer, AmGUARD Insurance Company, under the county’s automobile insurance policy.
The trial court granted AmGUARD’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policy unambiguously did not provide UM coverage for the Kubota because the tractor was not listed on the policy’s Schedule of Covered Autos. The Saxons appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding no UM coverage. Applying de novo review and standard rules of contract construction, the court examined the policy’s “Schedule Of Coverages And Covered Autos.” While some coverage types used symbol “7” (limited to specifically described autos), the UM coverage designation was symbol “2,” defined as “Owned ‘Autos’ Only.” This meant the policy provided UM coverage for any auto owned by the County, not merely those itemized on the schedule.
The dispositive question became whether the Kubota qualified as an “auto” under the policy. The policy defined “auto” as a land motor vehicle designed for travel on public roads or any other land vehicle subject to compulsory insurance laws, but excluded “mobile equipment.” Crucially, the policy stated that mobile equipment does not include land vehicles subject to compulsory or financial responsibility laws. Thus, if Georgia law required the tractor to be insured, it qualified as an “auto” under the policy.
Georgia law requires insurance for all motor vehicles that must be registered, and generally requires registration of every motor vehicle, including tractors. AmGUARD argued the Kubota fell under the exemption for tractors “used only for agricultural purposes.” The court rejected this argument, noting that Saxon was using the tractor for road maintenance—mowing grass alongside a public roadway—not agricultural purposes. Because the tractor was subject to Georgia’s compulsory insurance law, it constituted an “auto” under the policy’s UM provision.
Key Takeaways
- Insurance policies must be construed according to their entirety; specific coverage symbols (like “2” for “Owned Autos Only”) control over general schedules listing covered vehicles.
- A vehicle’s status as “mobile equipment” versus an “auto” under Georgia insurance policies depends on whether it is subject to compulsory insurance laws, not merely its physical characteristics.
- The agricultural exemption for tractor registration applies only when the vehicle is used exclusively for agricultural purposes; using a tractor for county road maintenance removes it from the exemption.
- Uninsured motorist statutes are remedial and must be broadly construed to accomplish legislative purpose, potentially overriding policy provisions that conflict with the UM statute’s intent.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that county-owned tractors used for road maintenance qualify as “autos” under standard automobile insurance policies when they are subject to Georgia’s compulsory insurance requirements. Insurers cannot deny UM coverage simply because a vehicle is not itemized on a schedule when the policy’s coverage symbol extends to all owned autos.
The ruling emphasizes the importance of the “agricultural use” exemption’s narrow scope. Vehicles used for governmental road maintenance—even if they are tractors—fall outside the agricultural exemption and must be insured, triggering UM coverage under standard auto policies. This protects county employees injured while performing road work and ensures that insurance coverage follows the vehicle’s actual use rather than its classification as farm equipment.