UPDATE: ISO’s countrywide forms filing HO-2021-OFR21 amends the “lawn mower exclusion” so that there is coverage for “A riding lawn mower that, at the time of the ‘occurrence’, is being used to mow a lawn….” This change is effective in most states in March 2022.
Recently Insurance Journal reported a John Hopkins study on lawnmower injuries over an 8-year period at a 6,400 injuries a year incidence rate, with the average cost of those requiring medical attention being $37,000. Needless to say, lawnmowers can be extremely dangerous, raising the question of whether or not a homeowners policy would cover liability claims arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a lawnmower.
About 10 years ago, my next-door neighbor was mowing his yard on his riding lawnmower when he ran over a screwdriver he said one of his kids must have left in the yard. The blade stripped the plastic handle off and the steel shaft of the screwdriver ended up imbedded in a tree within 10 ft. of where my son shot basketball in our backyard. So if, for example, a neighbor is injured by a homeowner’s use of a riding lawn mower, would the operator likely have coverage under a homeowners policy? Of course, the answer is “Maybe.”
Despite the perception drilled into the public by incessant price-focused insurance advertising, auto and home insurance is NOT a commodity where coverages are the same. Even when examining industry-standard insurance policies like the ISO HO-3 form, the differences in coverage can be dramatic under different edition dates of policy forms.
For example, the following are excerpts from the “motor vehicle” exclusion in the most recent three editions of the ISO HO-3. One thing to note is that the consensus opinion is that “vehicles” refers to motorized equipment that can transport people or property. In other words, the exclusions below apply to RIDING mowers, not push mowers. The ISO HO-3 in each edition excludes motor vehicles used as follows:
- 1991 ISO HO-3
“Used to service an ‘insured’s’ residence” - 2000 ISO HO-3
“Used solely to service an ‘insured’s’ residence” - 2011 ISO HO-3
“Used solely to service a residence”
Consider my next-door neighbor screwdriver example. In the 1991 form, as long as he uses the mower to service his residence at some time, he has liability coverage. As we’ll see, the 1991 ISO form provides the broadest coverage for the use of riding lawnmowers.
However, let’s say he has the 2000 edition of the ISO form. Now he has liability coverage only if the lawnmower is used SOLELY to service his residence. What if he uses his lawn mower to mow the lawn of the church right behind our street that he was a member of? Or what if he uses his mower to mow the yard of another neighbor who is ill? Even worse, what if he is mowing the strip of grass between our two driveways in which our property line runs? If he mows that entire strip of grass, is he no longer SOLELY servicing HIS residence since he’s mowing MY residence’s lawn? A literal interpretation of this language would preclude any future coverage once he uses the auto to service anything other than his own residence…and that lack of coverage would even extend to the use of the mower on his own property.
When ISO made this change in policy language in 2000, the Big “I” Technical Affairs Committee, which meets with ISO annually to suggest form changes, asked ISO to return to the 1991 language due to the onerous nature of the new language. ISO elected not to do this, but they did mitigate the exclusion with the language introduced in the 2011 form edition.
The 2011 form covers the use of a riding mower as long as it is used solely to service “a” residence, not just the insured’s residence. So, in the case of my neighbor mowing that grassy strip between our driveways or mowing a sick neighbor’s yard, he would continue to have coverage. But not if he mows the church property directly behind his home. Unless…let’s say the church property has a parsonage, a residence for the pastor. If he mows the parsonage yard only, he still has coverage, but coverage vanishes FOREVER once he mows the non-residence part of the church property.
In each form edition, the exclusion applies to motor vehicles used in some way to service a residence. What happens if the owner uses the mower off a residence premises BUT then buys a new mower to replace that one. Since the new mower has never been used to service a premises that is not a residence, is coverage now reinstated for that new mower?
To continue the bizarre exposures this language presents. What if my neighbor’s lawn mower breaks down and he borrows my mower to finish mowing his lawn? The blade comes loose, injuring another neighbor who then sues both of us. For the 1991 policy, we should both have coverage under our respective ISO HO-3’s.
However, if we have the 2000 edition, neither of us have coverage. Under the neighbor’s 2000 policy, MY mower has not been used solely to service his residence. In addition, since I’ve loaned my neighbor my mower to service his residence, liability coverage under my own policy vanishes because the mower has no longer been used to solely service my residence.
What if we each have the 2011 edition? It depends. It depends on whether MY mower has ever been used to service a nonresidence premises. Perhaps it never has, but while my neighbor has my mower, he mows a strip of church property that abuts his backyard. Now, coverage vanishes forever if we read this policy language literally.
Keep in mind that we’re only talking about ISO forms with slight language changes between form editions. If it’s a non-ISO policy, even stranger things are possible.
Could you explain this to a customer? Does this really make any sense given the risk presented by riding lawnmowers and the millions of homeowners who use them?
If this single example doesn’t convince you that homeowners insurance is NOT a commodity, I don’t know what would. Caveat emptor.
Photo by Marc van der Chijs 
Bill Wilson
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- Horrible Policy Forms and Endorsements To Avoid or Be Wary Of - April 28, 2023
- One of the Most Frustrating Claims of My Career - April 20, 2023
- Insurance Advertising - March 24, 2023
I received this inquiry via email:
“So Bill how do we solve the lawn mower issue, tell people not to help others?”
My response:
I think the first step is awareness so that, when questions arise from insureds, we can answer them correctly. But the real resolution is to make this an issue collectively with ISO carriers and push for a return to the 1991 language.
When ISO introduced the “solely” language in 2000, I could find nothing in that circular to subscribing insurers that addressed the reason for the change, but the severe limitation it imposed was clear. The Big I’s national technical affairs committee took this up with ISO and they indicated that they intended to remove the “solely” language. When the 2011 countrywide filing was made, they did not remove the “solely” language but did extend coverage to other residences. This left a gap for nonresidence use such as mowing an adjacent vacant lot…which is interesting given that the HO policy would cover the use of an ATV on the vacant lot, but not a riding mower. The committee gave ISO other examples, from having to mow an easement not technically part of the residence premises to an actual coverage scenario where a homeowner rented a bobcat to do some work on his property…clearly, use of that rented bobcat, having been used by others for use on nonresidence properties, would not be covered.
Subsequently, ISO advised that they would revise the language of the exclusion yet again to broaden coverage but did not want to grant worldwide coverage. That’s where this stands now.
If you’re interested in following up on this, you could send my blog post or a link to it to your carrier claims departments and ask them how they would treat scenarios where a riding mower is, or has been, used off the residence premises. Keep in mind that a literal reading of the exclusion is that it does not apply solely to the vehicle WHILE it is being used away from a residence premises…once that happens, there is no coverage even if, at the time of BI or PD, the vehicle is being used on a residence premises.
How did we get in the position that I have should have concerns for liability coverage from my homeowners, if I mow my neighbors yard while they are recovering from health issues? The issue we are discussing shows how far the insurance industry has lost its way in protecting people.
I agree. The purpose of insurance is to insure. Homeowners coverage is designed so that coverage for most widespread noncatastrophic exposures affecting a large population of insureds is included. Millions of homeowners own and use riding lawn mowers. The exposure is so common, it merits inclusion in HO policies. Sure, there is some increased risk in mowing someone else’s yard, but it’s likely minimal and it’s common…who mows precisely along their property line? And some people will unwisely hook a trailer to a lawn tractor and haul kids around on Halloween. But that’s rare and why shouldn’t they have coverage for potentially severe, but infrequent and noncatasrophic, losses?
It’s interesting to know that propane mowers will offer significant cost savings. my husband and I are working on a garden remodeling project, and we are looking for advice to buy a lawnmower. I will let him know about the benefits of propane mowers to help him decide.
is electric Lawn Mowers best for mid size yard?
Opinions vary.
What is your experience with Riding Lawn Mower so far?