Coachman Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Barry Kelley, under a homeowner's policy for a negligence claim arising from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident.
The policy contained a 'motorized vehicle' exclusion.
The court found the exclusion ambiguous and, construing it narrowly, determined it applied to allegations of Kelley's direct physical interaction with the ATV causing it to flip over.
However, the exclusion did not apply to distinct allegations that Kelley impeded the driver's escape or was intoxicated, as these were considered separate concurrent causes not solely 'due to' the use of the motorized vehicle.
Consequently, Coachman was found to have a duty to defend Kelley for the claims not falling under the exclusion.
