While operating heavy construction equipment, the insured's nine-year old son injured a worker.  The court considered whether the insurer had to defend and indemnify under a motor vehicle exclusion in the insured's  homeowner's policy.  See Rhoades v. Massachusetts Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assoc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69870 (D. Mass. July 13, 2010).

   The insured was the president of Feeney Corporation, a subcontractor at a construction site.  When visiting the construction site, the insured's son started operating a caterpillar "skid steer" owned by Feeney Corporation.  After placing skid steer in reverse, the son hit and injured Rhodes, an employee of a subcontractor of Feeney Corporation's. 

   When Rhoades sued the insured, Massachusetts Property refused to defend or indemnify based on a motor vehicle exclusion in the policy.  Rhoades secured a default judgment against the insured and an assignment of rights against Massachusetts Property.  Rhoades then sued the insurer.

   The court first determined that the skid steer was a motor vehicle under the policy.  The policy defined motor vehicle as a self-propelled land or amphibious vehicle.  There was no ambiguity.  The definition was sufficiently clear so that an objectively reasonable insured could not expect liability arising out of the use of a skid steer would be covered based on the motor vehicle exclusion.

   The policy had exceptions to the exclusion, however.  Motor vehicle liability was covered if the motor vehicle was "(a) in storage, (b) used solely to service an insured's residence, (c) designed to assist the handicapped, or (d) designed for recreational use off public roads."  None of the categories applied here. 

   Finally, despite the applicability of motor vehicle exclusion, the insured argued he was still entitled to coverage under the "train of events" test adopted by Massachusetts courts.  Under this test, if the efficient proximate cause of a loss was an insured risk, there would be coverage even though the final form of the property damage, produced by a series of related events, appeared to take the loss outside the terms of the policy.

   The train of events test did not apply here, however.  The test was only applicable when coverage under first party policies was at stake.  The Massachusetts Property policy was a third-party policy and Rhoades' injuries were caused by the insured themselves, not by a series of events.