Title: Luneau v. Peerless Insurance Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Luneau v. Peerless Insurance Co. (98-238); 170 Vt. 442; 750 A.2d 1031

[Opinion Filed 24-Mar-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 14-Apr-2000]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter  of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of  any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 98-238

Judy Luneau	                                 Supreme Court

     v.	                                         On Appeal from
    	                                         Franklin Superior Court
Peerless Insurance Co., DLD Insurance	
LTD., d/b/a Landry Insurance and Mark	         April Term, 1999
Landry and Pamela Landry

David A. Jenkins, J.

A. Gregory Rainville of Rainville & Associates, P.C., and Michael Rose, St. 
  Albans, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas Le Brun of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiff Judy Luneau appeals a verdict of the superior
  court holding that  defendant Peerless Insurance Company did not have a
  duty to indemnify policy holder Robert  Wagner for his liability in
  negligently injuring plaintiff.   We affirm. 

       The trial court found the following facts.  Wagner had a homeowner's
  insurance policy  issued by defendant that included personal liability
  coverage.  The policy included a business  pursuits exclusion clause that
  read:  

     Coverage E -- Personal liability and Coverage F -- Medical Payments 
     to Others do not apply to "bodily injury". . . [a]rising out of 
     "business" pursuits of an "insured."  

 

  This exclusion does not apply to activities which are usual to
  non-"business" pursuits. 

       On September 4, 1994, Wagner was employed as a disc jockey at a
  wedding reception at the  Champlain Country Club in Swanton, Vermont.  He
  was paid $300.00 for the service.  At the time,  Wagner was regularly
  employed with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters.  For a number of years, 
  however, he had been conducting his disc jockey business on the side.  He
  had printed cards using  the business name "Music Unlimited."  On his tax
  returns, he had declared income from his disc  jockey activities, including
  $7,175.00 for 1992, $6,000.00 for 1993 and $5,000.00 for 1994, and had 
  deducted related expenses as business expenses.

       On the day of the reception, Wagner set up his own equipment, stacking
  his loudspeakers  next to the dance floor.  During the reception he drank
  several alcoholic beverages.  At one point he  became involved in a scuffle
  with an obstreperous and intoxicated guest who was upset because  Wagner
  had forgotten to play a song he had requested.

       During the scuffle, one of Wagner's speakers became dislodged and
  struck plaintiff in the  head, knocking her to the floor and causing
  bleeding, bruising, swelling and a concussion.  After the  incident,
  plaintiff suffered from neck, back and shoulder pain.  She incurred medical
  expenses and  also lost approximately $5,600.00 in wages for the work she
  missed due to her injuries.

       On February 9, 1995, plaintiff filed a complaint against Wagner
  alleging that, while Wagner  had been "employed as a disc jockey" during
  the September 4th reception, he had been negligent  (1) in "the placement,
  use and supervision of the stereo equipment," and (2) in his "physical 
  conduct," resulting in injury to the plaintiff.  Plaintiff and Wagner
  subsequently stipulated to a  judgment that Wagner was liable to plaintiff
  in the amount of $60,000.00, which the court entered. 
 
 

  As part of the settlement, Wagner assigned any claim to plaintiff he might
  have against  defendant arising out of the matter.

       On February 7, 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant
  seeking indemnification  for the judgment.  Defendant filed a motion for
  summary judgment, arguing that the injury was  excluded by the policy as a
  matter of law.  The court denied the motion, held a bench trial and  
  issued a decision in favor of defendant.  It determined that Wagner had
  been negligent both in his  placement of the speakers and in becoming
  involved in the shoving match, and that each act of  negligence was a
  proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.  The court denied coverage,
  however, based  on its conclusion that both acts of negligence fell within
  the business pursuits exclusion of Wagner's  policy.  The court stated that
  the issue was a question of fact.  Because Wagner had been employed  as a
  disc jockey for profit at the time, had engaged in the business of disc
  jockeying for several years,  and had admitted to others that he needed
  additional insurance to cover any liability related to the  business, the
  court concluded that both the placement of the loudspeakers and the shoving
  match  were "entirely related to his business pursuit at that time."

       On appeal, plaintiff argues (1) that the exception for activities
  usual to non-business pursuits  applies, and (2) that the doctrine of
  concurrent causation should apply so as to provide coverage for  her
  injuries despite the existence of an excluded risk. (FN1) 

 

                                     I.

       Upon reviewing a verdict from the bench, this Court will not set aside
  the trial court's  factual  findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 
  See V.R.C.P. 52(a)(2).  Those finding are viewed in a  light most favorable
  to the prevailing party.  See Mullin v. Phelps, 162 Vt. 250, 260,