A Yamaha Wave Runner was involved in an accident causing personal injuries. The owner's homeowners insurer denied coverage on the basis of a personal liability exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising out of watercraft "designated as an airboat, air cushion, jet ski or similar type of craft." The insured filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that the Wave Runner was not, as the insurer contended, a "jet ski or similar type of craft."

The trial court considered several facts in determining that the Wave Runner was not excluded from coverage. Its competitor, the Kawasaki Jet Ski, which could be operated only from a standing position, was the only such watercraft in existence when the insurer incorporated the pertinent exclusion in its policies. The Yamaha Wave Runner, introduced later, could be operated from a sitting position as well as a standing position, giving it the character of a family rather than a young person's watercraft.

The court concluded that the Wave Runner was not clearly excluded from coverage. The insurer appealed a judgment for the insured. The appeal court noted evidence, from brochures and otherwise, that the two craft compared were operated in the same manner. It said that the average person could not differentiate between them. Each was propelled by a water jet pump. "They look alike, are powered alike and are driven alike." Furthermore, the court said, "the term 'jet ski' is often used as a generic term...." with respect to various personal (one person) watercraft.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

(STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant v. JOHNSON, Appellee. Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Case No. 90-2016. April 1, 1992. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3663.)