Task: songer_geniss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. Consider the following categories: "criminal" (including appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence), "civil rights" (excluding First Amendment or due process; also excluding claims of denial of rights in criminal proceeding or claims by prisoners that challenge their conviction or their sentence (e.g., habeas corpus petitions are coded under the criminal category); does include civil suits instituted by both prisoners and callable non-prisoners alleging denial of rights by criminal justice officials), "First Amendment", "due process" (claims in civil cases by persons other than prisoners, does not include due process challenges to government economic regulation), "privacy", "labor relations", "economic activity and regulation", and "miscellaneous".

PER CURIAM.
Leavitt appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Home Insurance Company, Inc. (“Home”), after the district court granted Home’s motion for summary judgment.
Home had written a comprehensive liability policy (general-automobile) in favor of its assured, Cripple Creek Resort, Inc. (“Cripple Creek”), sometime prior to May 3, 1964. It undertook to defend and to indemnify its assured under terms and conditions stated in the policy. On May 3, 1964, William Leavitt was killed in an automobile accident near Fairbanks, Alaska. Leavitt was riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by Russell Gillaspie, Jr.
On March 23, 1965, the administrator of Leavitt’s estate sued Gillaspie and Cripple Creek, claiming that Cripple Creek was liable for Leavitt’s wrongful death because it had served intoxicating liquor to Gillaspie, a minor who was then intoxicated, in violation of cited sections of the Alaskan statutes.
Cripple Creek tendered defense of the action to Home. Home denied coverage and refused to defend. Cripple Creek secured other counsel who settled the case by confessing judgment in favor of Leavitt’s estate for $100,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees and by obtaining the administrator’s agreement not to execute on the judgment so long as Cripple Creek prosecuted its action against Home.
On January 5, 1967, Home filed an action against Leavitt’s administrator and Cripple Creek seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend Cripple Creek against the wrongful death action and that it was not required to indemnify Cripple Creek upon its settlement of that litigation. Cripple Creek defaulted. Home and the administrator each sought summary judgment. The district court denied the administrator’s motion, granted Home’s motion, and this appeal followed.
We think Home was right in denying coverage. The wrongful death action filed against Cripple Creek fell within exclusion “(E)” of the policy, excluding from coverage liability imposed on the insured as an organization engaged in “selling * * * alcoholic beverages, or as an owner or lessor of premises used for such purpose, by reason of any statute or ordinance pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage.”
None of the remaining contentions requires discussion in view of our disposition of the coverage issue.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judge J. WARREN MADDEN concurs in the judgment.

Question: What is the general issue in the case?
A. criminal
B. civil rights
C. First Amendment
D. due process
E. privacy
F. labor relations
G. economic activity and regulation
H. miscellaneous
Answer:

Answer: G