if they are “clearly worded” and “conspicuously displayed” without regard to whether the insured read the limitations or understood their significance. Id. (citing Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Ins. Co., 503 Pa. 300, 307, 469 A.2d 563, 567 (1983)). IV. Discussion The issue in this case is whether Drumheller’s policy covers the bodily injury suffered by Katzenmoyer arising out of Drumheller’s operation of the ATV. Katzenmoyer’s bodily injury is not covered under Drumheller’s policy if Drumheller was operating the ATV “away from the insured premises.” More precisely, this means that if Drumheller was not operating the ATV on his “residence premises” or on premises “used in connection with [his] residence premises,” then Katzenmoyer’s . 52, 945 P.2d 363, 366 (1997) (<HOLDING>); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Comer, No.
holding that an unpaved public street a short distance from the policyholders home was not part of the insured premises because it was not used in connection with the residence premises holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable holding that a pasture leased by the policyholder was not used in connection with the residence premises of the policyholder 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 the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees