Summary Judgment In Favor Of Insurer Affirmed On Appeal
Fred Valz defended a homeowners’ insurer against claims for coverage for an accident that occurred away from the insured premises. The parents of a teenage girl were hosting her birthday party at a field belonging to family friends where guests could ride four-wheelers and engage in other outdoor activities. The teenager and her friend were seriously injured when the four-wheeler they were riding turned over. The parents sought coverage for the injuries under their homeowners’ policy of insurance, contending that the field, located several miles from the insured premises, was being used “in connection with the insured premises.” In affirming summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, explaining that adoption of such an expansive definition of “insured premises” would expose insurers to virtually endless liability. Mason v. Allstate, 2009 WL 1636588.
For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.