Field Not Insured Premises under Homeowner's Policy
In Mason v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1636588 (Ga.App.), Brick and Pam Mason and their minor daughter, Amy Stowers appealed from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Allstate Insurance Company in a declaratory judgment action arising from a personal injury claim.
Stowers was injured when she was thrown off the back of an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) which was owned by friends of the Masons, Werner and Deborah Kralick (“the insureds”), and which she had been riding with the Kralick's daughter, Sarah. The Masons contended that the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that an Allstate homeowners insurance policy issued to the Kralicks did not cover Amy Stowers' injuries.
While the insureds' policy was in effect, they held a party for Sarah at a field located approximately 15 miles from their home. Although the insureds had previously used the field with the owner's permission to ride the family's ATV and to fish and hunt, they had no ownership or leasehold interest in the field and had never paid any money to use the property. On the day of the party, Sarah and Amy were injured after Sarah lost control of the ATV and the girls were thrown from the vehicle. Their families submitted claims to Allstate under the insureds' homeowners policy.
Allstate sent a letter to the insureds explaining that their policy covered motor vehicles when they were used exclusively on an insured premises, but not ATV's when they were used away from an insured premises. The letter also notified them that the company was reserving all rights and defenses under the policy while it conducted an investigation of the claims. Allstate filed a declaratory judgment action asking the trial court to determine whether the claims were covered by the policy and whether Allstate had a duty to indemnify or defend the insureds against the claims. The trial court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, finding that, under the insureds' policy, Allstate did not have a duty to provide coverage, a defense, or indemnification for claims arising out of the accident as a matter of law.
The Masons appealed, contending that the relevant provisions of the policy were ambiguous and that the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the policy excluded coverage for Amy's injuries, arguing that issues of material fact remained for jury resolution.
The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the ownership or use of “any motor vehicle designed principally for recreational use off public roads” when “that vehicle is owned by an insured person and is being used away from an insured premises [.]” The policy defined “[i]nsured premises” as “the residence premises” as well as “any premises used by an insured person in connection with the residence premises [.]”
At issue was whether the ATV was being used “away from an insured premises” at the time of the accident. The resolution of the dispute depended on whether the field fell under the policy's alternate definition of an “insured premises,” i.e., whether the field was a “premises used by an insured person in connection with the residence premises.”
After considering the language of the policy in this case, the policy as a whole, the undisputed facts, and the persuasive authority on the issue, the appeals court concluded that the field was not being used “in connection with” the insureds' property and, therefore, was not an “insured premises” under the policy.
Further, the court explained that the Masons' argument that they were using the field “in connection with” their home because they were holding their daughter's birthday party at the field so family members and guests could do activities that they were unable to do at the house was unavailing , as adopting such an expansive definition of “insured premises” would expose insurers to virtually endless liability.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the lower court.