Opinion ID: 146624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Integral Use

Text: An alternate approach is to examine the necessity of the use at issue, as was adopted in Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n v. Wynn, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 824, 806 N.E.2d 447 (App.Ct. 2004). In that case, James Spina and Charles Wynn were driving ATVs on a beach close to Spina's home when the vehicles collided, injuring Wynn. Spina's homeowner's insurance policy, like the Kings' policy, covered both his residence premises and premises used in connection with the residence premises. Further, Spina's ATV was garaged at the insured residence premises. In construing the policy, the Massachusetts court found that, although Spina frequently operated his ATV on the beach, [t]he definition [of `insured location'] is not meant to encompass adjacent, nonowned land on which an ATV might be used any more than it is intended to include parks or recreational facilities in proximity to the residence that the insured may enjoy and use regularly. 60 Mass. App.Ct. at 829-30, 806 N.E.2d at 451. In rejecting the regular/repeated use test, the Wynn court opined that [i]t is not reasonable that the meaning of the language `used in connection with [the residence],' and hence the ambit of the `insured location,' should vary depending on the fortuity of an insured's regular use of a field, trail, or recreational area, public or private, in the neighborhood of his residence, because [s]uch a construction would require knowledge by an insurer of not only the insured's property but also of neighboring property and the insured's hobbies and interests. 60 Mass.App.Ct. at 830, 806 N.E.2d at 451-52. Wynn ultimately concluded that the term `insured location' is intended and appropriately understood to be limited to the residence and premises integral to its use as a residence , though it explicitly did not reach the question of whether an offsite pathway or approach to [a] residence can be integral to the use of the residence. 60 Mass. App.Ct. at 830 & n. 9, 806 N.E.2d at 452 & n. 9 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa, 494 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.Ct. App.1993), a Minnesota appellate court found no coverage of an ATV accident that occurred in an adjacent, nonowned hayfield where the insured's ATV might have been used, concluding that [i]t is not reasonable to expect that every field or pathway in the neighborhood leading to the insureds' residence is property `used in connection with' the residence, and affirming the lower court's finding that the homeowner's policy excluded coverage. Id. at 506. However, Coppa notably distinguished the uninsured hayfield from approaches or easements of ingress to or egress from the property. Id. Should the Connecticut Supreme Court choose to follow the integral use approach, the outcome of this appeal again would implicate subsidiary considerations. To the extent that Midwood Road in general is considered to be the relevant location, a court would presumably find the use of such premises to be integral to the use of the Kings' residence premises, as the Kings must use Midwood Road in order to reach the public highway. Under a more restrictive view, in which the relevant location is defined as the northern portion of Midwood Road, directly outside number 63 (the actual site of injury), coverage would likely not exist because that portion of Midwood Road provides no ingress or egress to One Deer Park Court, and thus is not integral to the Kings' use of their residence premises. Correlatively, support for that more limited construction may be found in the warranty deed to One Deer Park Court, which expressly grants the Kings the right to use in common with others ... for all purposes of travel, the private roads leading from the premises to and from the public highway insofar as the same may be necessary or convenient in passing to and from the premises.  (A 01209) (emphasis added).