The plaintiff insurers, who provided homeowners and umbrella coverage, respectively, to the defendant insureds, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the Court that they had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant insureds in an underlying tort case brought against the insureds arising from an ATV accident near the insureds’ property in a private homeowners development in Greenwich, Connecticut. The accident allegedly caused a teenage boy, visiting the insureds’ home, to sustain a traumatic brain injury. The injured boy’s suit against the insureds created exposure to the plaintiff insurers in excess of the $5.5 million coverage limits provided under the two policies. However, the plaintiff insurers asserted that (1) there was no coverage under the homeowners policy because the accident did not occur on an insured location; and (2) there was no coverage under the umbrella policy because the insureds had not declared the subject ATV in the policy declarations, as required under the policy. Presented with seven motions for summary judgment raising several complex ancillary issues by and between the parties, which also included the insurance broker and an excess carrier, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff insurers on all claims raised by and against them in the motions. The plaintiff insurers were represented by Daniel Scapellati of Halloran & Sage’s insurance coverage group.