[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12062 ____________________

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, versus ANNA BEVILACQUA SPANGLER, RICHARD DALE SPANGLER,

Defendants-Counter Claimant-Appellants.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 2 of 23

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12062

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00360-PGB-LRH ____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and HULL, Circuit Judges. JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: Richard D. Spangler and his spouse Anna Spangler main- tained a car insurance policy (the “Policy”) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. While the Policy was in force, Anna was involved in an accident in which she was struck and in- jured by an uninsured driver of an electric motorized scooter. The Spanglers made a claim for her injuries under the Policy’s Unin- sured Motor Vehicle (“UM”) coverage. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that under the Policy the scooter was neither a “mo- tor vehicle” nor an “uninsured motor vehicle,” which the Policy defined as a “land motor vehicle.” State Farm sued the Spanglers, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no cover- age. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the Spanglers’ motion, granting summary judgment in part to State Farm. The district court concluded that a Florida statutory USCA11 Case: 21-12062 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023 Page: 3 of 23

21-12062 Opinion of the Court 3

definition of “motor vehicle” resolved the dispute in State Farm’s favor. 1 On appeal, the Spanglers argue that because the Policy de- fines “uninsured motor vehicle” as a “land motor vehicle,” the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “land motor vehicle” dic- tates the scope of the Policy, and under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, the scooter is a covered uninsured motor ve- hicle. After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argu- ment, we agree and therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm. We conclude that the Policy de- fines “uninsured motor vehicle” more broadly than Florida insur- ance law requires. Because an insurer can provide more UM cov- erage than the law requires, we decline to disregard the Policy’s broader definition of uninsured motor vehicle in favor of a more limited statutory definition of motor vehicle. I. BACKGROUND We begin by describing the relevant parts of the Policy. We then turn to the underlying accident involving the scooter, includ- ing the scooter’s specifications, and the litigation that followed.

1 The parties agree that Florida law governs this diversity-jurisdiction action involving the interpretation of an insurance policy issue