ATV use on adjacent state property may be covered by homeowners insurance
Fremont Insurance Company sued its insureds, the Izenbaards, and injury victim Nathan Kadau, seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage for Kadau's injuries. Kadau was injured during a batchelor party when he fell from an ATV being operated by the insureds. Fremont acknowledged that there was limited ATV liability coverage under the homeowners' policy if an owned ATV was operated on the insured premises "or any premises used by you in connection with [an insured premises]," but argued that the adjacent state land did not qualify for coverage.
Originally, the Court of Appeals panel with three staunch Republican judges held that the state land COULD NOT qualify as a "premises" because there was no structure on it. The State Supreme Court reversed this holding, pointing out that under standard definitions, a "premises" need not contain a structure. On Remand, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court to make a factual determination of whether the adjacent state land properly fell within the definition of "premises" used in the policy.