A visitor was injured when a child lost control of a go-kart on the insureds' property.
The insureds claimed coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy.
The insurer denied coverage, relying on an exclusion for 'motorized land vehicles'.
The motion judge found the go-kart was a toy or 'implement' and thus excepted from the exclusion.
The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the go-kart was a motorized land vehicle and did not fall within the exception for 'implements' such as lawnmowers or snow blowers.
The claim was therefore excluded from coverage.
