Utica Mutual Insurance v. Fontneau

This appeal requires interpretation of a phrase common in homeowner’s insurance policies. The question presented is whether an insured party, Edward T. Fontneau, used an adjacent *554parcel “in connection with” his insured residence so as to require the insurer, Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica Mutual), to defend and to indemnify him against claims of liability for personal injuries suffered by a third party on the adjacent parcel. By allowance of Fontneau’s cross motion for partial summary judgment, a Superior Court judge ruled that Utica Mutual had a duty to defend. At the conclusion of a…