On June 28, 2024, in the declaratory judgment lawsuit Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company v. Brad Menaker et al., docket no. 22-1119, the Honorable Steven R. Serfass of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment for the Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company and enforced the motor vehicle liability exclusion to exclude liability coverage from an ATV accident under a homeowner’s policy and dwelling policy. The claim for coverage arose from a fatal March 18, 2020, ATV collision occurring on School House Road, a public road in Carbon County, Pennsylvania approximately one mile away from the insured’s residential property. The insured then tendered the claims for liability coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy, insuring a property in Philadelphia, and a dwelling insurance policy, insuring the Carbon County residential property.
Each policy had a general motor vehicle liability exclusion, but each policy also had a limited ATV liability exception if the ATV accident occurred on an “insured location.” The definition of “insured location” included premises used “in connection with” the residence. The insured and the tort claimant both argued that School House Road was an “insured location” because School House Road was regularly used to travel back and forth between the insured property and other locations and consequently was used “in connection with” the residence, despite such use of an ATV on a public road being unlawful in Pennsylvania. Although the insured did not own the School House Road location, the insured and the tort claimant argued State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. MacDonald, 850 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2004) held that property not owned by the insured could still be an “insured location” if used in connection with the residence.
Agreeing with arguments set forth by the Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company, Judge Serfass found that School House Road was not an “insured location.” Citing Haines v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1257982, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2010), aff’d, 417 Fed. Appx. 151 (3d Cir. 2011) and Nationwide v. Gardner, 928 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007), Judge Serfass held that a public road, regardless of its proximity to the insured property, cannot be an “insured location.” First, Judge Serfass held that holding otherwise would blur the difference between homeowner’s insurance and motor vehicle insurance by permitting insurance coverage. Second, Judge Serfass held that the insured’s argument “ignores the language of the policy exception that it was intended to cover vehicles ‘designed for recreational use off public roads…’ As in Gardner, it also calls upon this Court to find for the unlawful use of an ATV.”
McCormick & Priore, P.C. attorneys Robert Cahall and Christopher Regan handled the case for the Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company. For additional questions, or if you would like a copy of the memorandum opinion, please contact Robert J. Cahall, Esq. or Christopher S. Regan, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
