Michael Robertson, individually, and as father and natural guardian of B.R., a minor, Appellant, vs. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Bruce Flatmoe, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C7-97-1865

Michael Robertson, individually,

and as father and natural guardian of B.R., a minor,

Appellant,

vs.

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company,

Respondent,

Bruce Flatmoe,

Respondent.

 Filed March 3, 1998

 Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part

 Davies, Judge

St. Louis County District Court

File No. C5-96-602075

A. Blake MacDonald, MacDonald & Downs, 200 Alworth Bldg., 306 West Superior St., Duluth, MN 55802-1973 (for appellant)

Anthony S. Downs, Steven W. Schneider, Halverson, Watters, Downs, Reyelts & Bateman, Ltd., 700 Providence Bldg., 332 West Superior St., Duluth, MN 55802-1801 (for respondent Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company)

John D. Kelly, Hanft, Fride, O'Brien, Harries, Swelbar & Burns, P.A., 1000 First Bank Place, 130 West Superior St., Duluth, MN 55802-2094 (for respondent Bruce Flatmoe)

Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Foley, Judge.*

*

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 DAVIES, Judge

This case involves uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims arising from a collision between an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and an automobile. On appeal from summary judgment in favor of respondents Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and its agent, Bruce Flatmoe, appellant Michael Robertson, whose son was injured in the accident, claims the district court erred by concluding that an ATV is not a "motor vehicle" under the Farm Bureau policy. Farm Bureau responds that the district court should be affirmed because the ATV is not a "motor vehicle," and also because the only named insured under the policy was a corporation and the policy, therefore, did not cover Robertson's family.

We agree with Farm Bureau that the policy covered only the corporation and not Robertson's family; we therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. We also agree with the district court and Farm Bureau that an ATV is not a "motor vehicle" under the policy and affirm the summary judgment on claims arising from negligent operation of the ATV.

The district court failed, however, to address Robertson's negligence and misrepresentation claims against Flatmoe, the agent who sold the policy. We therefore reverse and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Flatmoe.

 FACTS

Robertson, president of Duluth Ready-Mix, Inc., obtained a Farm Bureau automobile insurance policy covering the corporation's vehicles. The policy provided UM/UIM coverage for "the person or persons named in the declarations and while residents of his household, his spouse and the relatives of either." The declarations page listed Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc., as the sole insured.

In 1994, Robertson's son, B.R., was riding on an ATV driven by a friend when the ATV collided with an automobile, injuring B.R. Robertson sued the drivers of both the ATV and the automobile. After settling the suit, Robertson sued Farm Bureau for UM/UIM coverage. Robertson also sued Bruce Flatmoe, the agent who had sold the Farm Bureau policy to Duluth Ready-Mix, claiming that Flatmoe had both misrepresented that the policy provided coverage for Robertson's family and negligently failed to include them as insureds under the policy.

The Farm Bureau policy defined uninsured and underinsured motor vehicles as including only motorcycles or motor vehicles required to have coverage under the Minnesota No-Fault Act. The court concluded that the ATV was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the policy and granted summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau and Flatmoe.

 D E C I S I O N

The construction and interpretation of insurance policies are questions of law. Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Minn. 1997); Haarstad v. Graff, 517 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn. 1994). The question of whether policy language is ambiguous is one of law, which an appellate court may review de novo. Hammer v. Investors Life Ins. Co., 511 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Minn. 1994).

The declarations page of the Farm Bureau policy listed only Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc., as the named insured. There is nothing on that page, or in other policy language, that suggests the policy was intended to cover Robertson's family. If policy language is unambiguous, there is no reason for construction. American Commerce Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 551 N.W.2d 224, 227-28 (Minn. 1996). The Farm Bureau policy is unambiguous and clearly did not provide coverage for B.R. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau.[3]

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 DAVIES, Judge

This case involves uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims arising from a collision between an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and an automobile. On appeal from summary judgment in favor of respondents Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and its agent, Bruce Flatmoe, appellant Michael Robertson, whose son was injured in the accident, claims the district court erred by concluding that an ATV is not a "motor vehicle" under the Farm Bureau policy. Farm Bureau responds that the district court should be affirmed because the ATV is not a "motor vehicle," and also because the only named insured under the policy was a corporation and the policy, therefore, did not cover Robertson's family.

We agree with Farm Bureau that the policy covered only the corporation and not Robertson's family; we therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. We also agree with the district court and Farm Bureau that an ATV is not a "motor vehicle" under the policy and affirm the summary judgment on claims arising from negligent operation of the ATV.

The district court failed, however, to address Robertson's negligence and misrepresentation claims against Flatmoe, the agent who sold the policy. We therefore reverse and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Flatmoe.

 FACTS

Robertson, president of Duluth Ready-Mix, Inc., obtained a Farm Bureau automobile insurance policy covering the corporation's vehicles. The policy provided UM/UIM coverage for "the person or persons named in the declarations and while residents of his household, his spouse and the relatives of either." The declarations page listed Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc., as the sole insured.

In 1994, Robertson's son, B.R., was riding on an ATV driven by a friend when the ATV collided with an automobile, injuring B.R. Robertson sued the drivers of both the ATV and the automobile. After settling the suit, Robertson sued Farm Bureau for UM/UIM coverage. Robertson also sued Bruce Flatmoe, the agent who had sold the Farm Bureau policy to Duluth Ready-Mix, claiming that Flatmoe had both misrepresented that the policy provided coverage for Robertson's family and negligently failed to include them as insureds under the policy.

The Farm Bureau policy defined uninsured and underinsured motor vehicles as including only motorcycles or motor vehicles required to have coverage under the Minnesota No-Fault Act. The court concluded that the ATV was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the policy and granted summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau and Flatmoe.

 D E C I S I O N

The construction and interpretation of insurance policies are questions of law. Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Minn. 1997); Haarstad v. Graff, 517 N.W.2d 582, 584 (Minn. 1994). The question of whether policy language is ambiguous is one of law, which an appellate court may review de novo. Hammer v. Investors Life Ins. Co., 511 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Minn. 1994).

The declarations page of the Farm Bureau policy listed only Duluth Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc., as the named insured. There is nothing on that page, or in other policy language, that suggests the policy was intended to cover Robertson's family. If policy language is unambiguous, there is no reason for construction. American Commerce Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 551 N.W.2d 224, 227-28 (Minn. 1996). The Farm Bureau policy is unambiguous and clearly did not provide coverage for B.R. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau.[1]

We remand, however, for further proceedings on Robertson's allegations against Flatmoe. Robertson's complaint alleged that he had instructed Flatmoe to arrange insurance for Robertson and his family and that Flatmoe had negligently failed to do so. The complaint also alleged that Flatmoe had misrepresented that family coverage was provided under the Farm Bureau policy. The district court did not address these claims.

On remand, even if Flatmoe is found liable for negligence or misrepresentation, no damages for the negligence of the ATV driver can be recovered. The district court properly determined that the Farm Bureau policy did not provide UM/UIM coverage for injuries caused by a driver of an ATV. Nor does the no-fault act require auto insurance policies to cover ATVs. See Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subds. 3, 3a (1996) (motor vehicle insurance policy must provide UM/UIM coverage for persons occupying a motor vehicle or motorcycle).

  Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

[3]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

[ ]1 Robertson's complaint also alleged that Farm Bureau should be estopped from denying coverage because of an admission "Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A." The alleged admission is not attached to the complaint and Robertson has not supported his allegation of estoppel by citing any other record evidence. Further, estoppel is not a basis for expanding insurance policy coverage. See Shannon v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 276 N.W.2d 77, 78 (Minn. 1979) ("The doctrine of estoppel may not be used to enlarge the coverage of an insurance policy.").