The court reversed the trial court' s summary judgment rulingsafter finding that a provision in an auto policy precluding coverage for mobile equipment was not an exclusion but part of the grant of coverage based on its placement in the policy and, therefore, the insured had not met its burden of proof since it did not put any evidence in the record supporting its contention that a golf cart qualified as an "auto" under the policy terms. The insurer also failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that a duty to defend did not exist.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login