Does the term "motor vehicle" or "off-road vehicle" in a motor vehicle insurance policy have to be interpreted in accor dance with statutory definitions?

I do not think this case really assists the respondent. As I read it, it is authority only for the proposition that words in an insurance policy must be construed in accor dance with statutory definitions where the context requires. "Motor vehicle registration" is not defined in the statutes. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Highway Traffic Act, but there is nothing in the context of the case demanding that the words "motor vehicle" in the policy be given a similar meaning. Both "motor vehicles" and "off-road vehicles" are subject to regis tration in essentially the same way and for the same purposes and there is nothing in the policy to denote that the registration referred to must only be under the Highway Traffic Act. Unlike the policy in Laurence v. Davies, the policy is not essentially a policy devoted to the insuring of vehicles normally driven on a highway, but is a multipurpose policy insuring against general liability essentially excluding motorized vehicles.