MASS. ‘INSURED LOCATION’ DEFINED:

A Massachusetts homeowner insurer was found not obligated for injuries or defense in a case where an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident took place not on the insured’s own premises but on a nearby beach regularly used by the insured and which the insured had claimed should qualify as an “insured location.” At the time of the ATV accident, a homeowners insurance policy covered the residence where the insured garaged his ATV. The insured maintained that the policy’s exception language “owned by an ‘insured’ and on an ‘insured location'” was ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the recreational vehicle owned by the insured need only be garaged on the insured location. He maintained that the liability coverages would apply regardless of where the accident occurs, so long as the ATV was owned by the insured and garaged on the insured premises. But the court rejected that reasoning, finding that such an interpretation “proves too much” and, if adopted, would render the definition of “insured location” meaningless and “provide no discernible geographical limit to coverage.” The court said that the 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. Such locations are neither intended nor reasonably understood to be “insured locations” under a homeowners policy, the court ruled. The case is Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association v. Charles Brooks Wynn and others.