[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Peter C. Kober, with whom Murphy & Riley, P.C. was on brief, for appellant.
James T. Scamby, with whom Michael W. Reilly, Tommasino & Tommasino, and Heifetz Rose LLP were on brief, for appellees Andrew Zamsky and Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association (FAIR Plan).
David W. White, Jr., with whom Breakstone, White & Gluck was on brief, for appellee Renata Ivnitskaya.
Kara Thorvaldsen, with whom George C. Rockas and Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP were on brief, for appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company.
Before HOWARD, SELYA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
It seems self-evident that a story that involves throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire is unlikely to have a happy ending. That is true here, but the parties to this appeal have sifted through the embers and identified what some might regard as an oxymoron: an interesting insurance coverage question. After careful consideration, we conclude that the district court properly construed the relevant insurance contracts and proceeded to answer the coverage question correctly. Accordingly, we affirm.
Defendant-appellee Andrew Zamsky is an insured under three homeowners' policies issued to his parents by plaintiff-appellant Vermont Mutual Insurance Company (Vermont Mutual). Each of these policies covered a separate parcel of residential real estate owned by the Zamskys.
In relevant part, they require Vermont Mutual to defend and indemnify all persons insured thereunder, including Andrew Zamsky, against claims stemming fro " bodily injury" caused by a covered " occurrence," subject, however, to various exclusions. One such exclusion appearing in all three policies, which we shall refer to as the " UL exclusion," pretermits coverage for injuries " [a]rising out of a premises" owned by an insured but not itself an " insured location." The Zamskys owned a fourth piece of residential real estate, not insured by Vermont Mutual. The case before us concerns an accident that occurred there and turns on the applicability vel non of the UL exclusions contained in the Vermont Mutual policies.
The background facts are susceptible to succinct summary. On the night of November 27, 2008, Zamsky, defendant-appellee Renata Ivnitskaya, and several friends drove to a house in Falmouth, Massachusetts owned by Zamsky's parents. It is undisputed that the Falmouth house was not an " insured location" as defined in the policies.
At some point after their arrival, Zamsky retrieved from a shed on the property a portable fire pit that he had purchased earlier that year. The fire pit was somewhere around 30 inches wide and about ...