Opinion ID: 146624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Significance of Public/Private Nature of Road

Text: Closer scrutiny is required of several arguments offered by the Kings to demonstrate that Midwood Road is an insured location under their homeowner's insurance policy. First, they assert that Midwood Road is actually part of their residence premises, on the logic that because it is a private road within the homeowners association of which they are members, they can claim a real property ownership interest in it. Alternatively, they contend that the private nature of Midwood Road brings it into one or both of the other categories of insured location described in their policygrounds used by [the insured] as a residence and/or any premises used by [the insured] in connection with [the residence premises or the part of other premises, other structures and grounds used as a residence]. The first of the alternative grounds is easily dispatched. As the declarations page of the Kings' homeowner's policy specifically lists 1 Deer Park Ct[.] as the residence premises and makes no mention of Midwood Road, it is sufficiently clear that Midwood Road was not in fact part of the Kings' residence premises. Nor have the Kings presented any evidence to indicate that they ever used any portion of Midwood Road as a residence. However, we find that Connecticut law is unsettled regarding whether Midwood Road, because it is a private road, should be deemed a premises used in connection with the Kings' residence premises. The Kings claim that because they are residents of Deer Park and voting members of its homeowners association, they exert some control over Midwood Road and the other private roads within the development. Thus, they say, Midwood Road should be deemed a premises used by them in connection with their home. To further their argument, the Kings point to Uguccioni, 408 Pa.Super. at 513, 597 A.2d at 150 (finding that streets in a private residential development were private property used by the insureds in connection with their insured residence, and, for that reason, an ATV accident on such a private road was covered under that provision of the homeowner's policy). These arguments did not fly below. The district court rejected Uguccioni as an outlier that has been expressly, if not impliedly, overturned by subsequent decisions. 512 F.Supp.2d at 126. To be sure, courts in other jurisdictions have equated such private roads with public roads or, at a minimum, have not found any distinction apposite in considering the issue of coverage under a homeowner's liability policy. See, e.g., Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 05-0456, 2006 WL 929239 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2006) (holding that homeowner's policy excluded coverage because ATV accident on private roadway in homeowners association occurred away from the insured premises). Indeed, Davis rejected the very same argument now made by the Kingsthat the ATV accident was covered because the insureds were members of the homeowners association which owned and maintained the private road where the accident took placesince the insureds did not individually own the private road that, for all relevant purposes, was the functional equivalent of a public road. See id. Another case, Federal Kemper Insurance Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 563 A.2d 118 (1989), found that an insurance policy with a similar definition of insured location did not cover an ATV accident that occurred on a similarly owned and maintained private road. Like the Kings, the insureds in Derr belonged to the homeowners association that owned the road, paid fees for the road's maintenance and repair and had an easement over it to the extent used for egress and ingress. The Derr court found that the road was not an insured location because it was public insofar as it was dedicated for use as a roadway by all association members, and the insureds could claim no true ownership over it. Specifically, while giving some credit to the argument that the Derrs' easement constituted a property interest, the court affirmed the trial court's finding that all ninety lot owners are not individually responsible for insuring the easement, especially since a real estate corporation exists, which assumed the responsibility for maintenance of the road. 386 Pa.Super. at 388-89, 563 A.2d at 121-22. Derr explained further that [t]he road in this instance was a private road as to the plan but not as to any individual ... [and was] dedicated to the public use of all property owners, not subject to individual control by any of them.... Whether by deed or implication, this road is a public road as far as the plan is concerned, and may not be considered private property, part of the premises, or vacant property within the clear intent of the policy. 386 Pa.Super. at 389, 563 A.2d at 122. Although Derr does not specifically address the concept of use in connection with residence premises in an insurance policy's definition of an insured location, it does offer the view that private ownership of Midwood Road may be irrelevant in determining whether the road is a covered location by virtue of being within one or another definition of premises set forth in the policy. Accordingly, the significance of the public/private nature of a road in determining whether a road could be considered an insured location remains an open question under Connecticut law, and given the uncertainty and dearth of Connecticut case law regarding this potentially dispositive issue, we respectfully ask the Connecticut Supreme Court to consider and address it.