With thanks to a Coverage Opinions reader who steered this gem my way. 

Feast upon this opening sentence of the Ohio Court of Appeals decision in Mayor v. Wedding, No. 2003-P-011 (Ct. App. Ohio Dec. 5, 2003): “In this case we are called upon to determine whether a cow is an uninsured motor vehicle under appellant’s insurance policy.”

Mr. and Mrs. Mayor were traveling on the interstate and hit a cow owned by Thomas Wedding.  Several of Mr. Wedding’s cows had wandered onto the highway. Wedding had no liability insurance.  So the Mayors filed an action seeking to recover under their uninsured motorist policy.

The insurer mooo-ved for summary judgment that a cow is not an uninsured motor vehicle. It was granted.  The insureds appealed.  The appellate court herd the case and affirmed.

The policy’s definition of “land motor vehicle” offered many options.  But a cow was not among them so the court turned to the dictionary:

“There appears to be no dispute that there was a collision; the cow was not insured at the time of the collision; and that the cow caused the collision. The dispute in this case is whether the cow was a ‘land motor vehicle’ as defined in the policy. While a cow is designed for operation on land, we do not believe a cow is a ‘motor vehicle.’ The policy at issue does not separately define ‘motor vehicle;’ therefore we must look to the common, ordinary meaning of this term.

“The American Heritage Dictionary defines ‘motor vehicle’ as, ‘a self-propelled, wheeled conveyance that does not run on rails.’ A cow is self-propelled, does not run on rails, and could be used as a conveyance; however, there is no indication in the record that this particular cow had wheels. Therefore, it was not a motor vehicle and thus was not a ‘land motor vehicle’ as defined in the policy. The trial court properly found that appellants were not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. . . . To hold otherwise would be a manifestly absurd result.”

Remarkably, not that the court needed any help, but it also had guidance in reaching its decision, citing a 1984 Ohio appeals court decision holding that a horse was not a motor vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage.