A.2d at 150 (finding that streets in a private residential development were “private property used by the insureds in connection with their insured residence”, and, for that reason, an ATV accident on such a private road was covered under that provision of the homeowner’s policy). These arguments did not fly below. The district court rejected Uguccioni as “an outlier that has been expressly, if not impliedly, overturned by subsequent decisions.” 512 F.Supp.2d at 126. To be sure, courts in other jurisdictions have equated such private roads with public roads or, at a minimum, have not found any distinction apposite in considering the issue of coverage under a homeowner’s liability policy. See, e.g., Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 05-0456, 2006 WL 929239 (Iowa Ct.App. Apr. 12, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Davis rejected the very same argument
holding that a neighbors adjoining hayfield was not used in connection with the residence premises and therefore coverage for bodily injury arising out of an accident involving an atv was excluded under insurance policy holding that homeowners did not control the premises to the extent a duly  arose for injury during a home show when homeowners had moved only a few items in and had surrendered possession for the home show holding that homeowners policy precluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts holding that homeowners policy excluded coverage because atv accident on private roadway in homeowners association occurred away from the insured premises holding that the policy insured property but failure to occupy premises negated coverage