The insureds, Larry and Karen Johnson, owned a snowmobile. The Johnsons had purchased a homeowners policy through Illinois Farmers Insurance Company. The Johnsons allowed Hilary Christie to operate the snowmobile. While operating the vehicle, Christie--a minor--was injured. Christie's mother filed suit against the Johnsons who turned the claim into their homeowners insurer.

Illinois Farmer denied the claim and defense as the policy excluded coverage for "any other motorized land vehicle designed for recreational use off public roads." The Christies won their suit against the Johnsons who assigned their rights of recovery against Illinois Farmer to the Christies. In the ensuing decision, the lower court ruled in favor of the Christies who contend that the exclusion was ambiguous. The Christies claimed that a snowmobile did not drive on land but rather on snow and ice. Further, it was not solely a recreational vehicle and could be used for transportation and for hauling.

Illinois Farmer appealed the decision of the lower court. Upon appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with Illinois Farmer that land was used to distinguish the difference between water and air versus land, including snow and ice. Further, in Minnesota State statutes, snowmobile is listed and considered to be a recreational vehicle. Ruling was in favor of Illinois Farm.

(Christies, Respondent v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Appellant. MinnCtApp. No. C4-98-134, filed June 23, 1998. CCH 1998 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6539.)