of the risk of injury.” In other words, Katzenmoyer contends that because Drumheller’s negligent operation of the ATV began when Drumheller was on the residence premises, the bodily injury suffered by Katzenmoyer is within the scope of the policy's coverage. Thus, Katzenmoyer attempts to avoid the policy’s exclusion of coverage for bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring “away from the insured premises.” This strategy for avoiding the impact of the policy’s exclusion of coverage for accidents occurring away from the residence premises has been rejected by other courts. See Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Derr, 386 Pa.Super. 382, 391-92, 563 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa.Super. 1989); Uguccioni v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 408 Pa.Super. 511, 514, 597 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa.Super.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Farm Family Mutual Ins. Co. v.
holding that the plaintiffs location on the supply barge at the time of the accident did not alter his status holding that the allterrain vehicle being operated by michael pirrung was on an insured location at the time of his fatal accident holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that business use exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage of an insured after a car accident when the insured had been transporting a refrigerator in his personal vehicle as a favor to a friend had no expectation of compensation except being reimbursed for the cost of gas and it was an isolated incident