Opinion ID: 146624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Premises Used in Connection with a Residence Premises

Text: The initial step in determining whether where the injury-producing negligence occurred in this casethe site of the ATV accident on Midwood Road, outside number 63was covered as a premises used in connection with a residence premises is determining whether a roadway can constitute a premises at all. The word premises, as used in the realm of real property law, is generally defined by Black's Law Dictionary as [a] house or a building, along with its grounds. Black's Law Dictionary 1219 (8th ed.2004). Other definitions include: property that is conveyed by bequest or deed; a specified piece or tract of land with the structures on it; and a building, buildings, or part of a building covered by or within the stated terms of a policy (as of fire insurance). Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 1789 (1976). Thus, one possible view is that the term premises cannot describe the accident site, as Midwood Road proper is not a building, nor the grounds of a building. However, no Connecticut court has ruled whether a road (public or private) should be considered a premises within the meaning of an insurance contract. Nor have Connecticut courts dealt with the follow-up question of whether such a situs can satisfy the used in connection with a residence premises standard. Several other jurisdictions, on the other hand, have dealt with similar facts and policy language. This collection of decisional law demonstrates a range of analytical approaches roughly summarized as follows: repeated use; integral use; legal interest or ownership; foreseeable use; and actual use (which the court below appears to have chosen in the absence of controlling Connecticut precedent). We discuss these standards here insofar as they may be instructive. The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, may choose to adopt any one of them, or blaze a different path altogether.