injury is not covered by the policy, and Allstate is under neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify Drumheller in the state court action brought by Katzenmoyer against Drumheller. When Drumheller struck the sewer manhole on the trail, he was clearly not operating the ATV on the residence premises. Thus, the only issue is whether the trail on which Drumheller was operating the ATV was used “in connection with the residence premises.” Drumheller did not use the trail in connection with his premises. Even though the trail begins less than 800 yards from his driveway and he used the trail almost everyday for recreational purposes, Drum-heller did not use the trail “in connection with” his premises. See Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Coppa, 494 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Hudnell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 190
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 a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured 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 homeowners policy excluded coverage because atv accident on private roadway in homeowners association occurred away from the insured premises