coverage for an ATV, which was not traveling on a public highway at the time of the accident, does not implicate the legislature’s concern for the cost of automobile insurance or the increase in the number of uninsured motorists driving on public highways. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Black, 591 Pa. 221, 916 A.2d 569, 580 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted). ¶ 15 Moreover, our decision in this matter is also consistent with conclusions reached by our sister Court on a similar matter. In considering the application of the MVFRL to an ATV in a different context, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court concluded that an ATV was governed by the specific provisions of the SATVL and not the broader requirements of the MVFRL. See Pelter v. Com., DOT, 663 A.2d 844, 848 (Pa.Commw.1995) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16 Based upon the foregoing, we agree that
holding that access to financial information was reasonably related to a defendants narcotics convictions because financial gain motivated the underlying crimes holding that the penalty is applicable holding that the financial responsibility requirements of the satvl and not the mvfrl were applicable to atvs holding rule applicable to witness holding that the definition of covered business method patent is not limited to products and services of only the financial industry or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions