Ryan's insurers asserted that coverage was excluded by an exclusion for property damage to "property you [the insured] own, rent, or occupy." The insurers argued that because Ryan "occupied" the disputed property, there was no coverage.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court disagreed, stating:
That exclusion prevents the insured from using the general liability policy as property insurance. . . . "What the exclusion means is that the [general liability] policy was intended to cover only liability of the insured to third parties and not [damage to] the property of the insured." Here, the damage caused by the trespass was to at third party's property, not property of the insured.