Opinion ID: 6338497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance of the Mathis Test

Text: The last issue to resolve on appeal is whether the district court erred in relying on the unambiguous meaning of the relevant terms, rather than applying the two-part test outlined in Mathis. “In determining whether a business pursuit exclusion applies to a particular set of facts, courts in Illinois have typically applied a two part test: (1) is the activity regular and continuous? and (2) does the activity provide at least some portion of the insured's livelihood?” Mathis, 706 N.E.2d at 894. In arguing that Liberty Mutual fell short of establishing what is required to trigger a business pursuit exclusion under Illinois law, Clayton fails to acknowledge that the written 14 No. 21-1665 policy controls. The written policy requires a showing of regular provision of daycare services (rather than regular and continuous) and a showing of monetary or other compensation (rather than proof of some portion of the insured’s livelihood). Under Illinois law, “[i]n construing an insurance policy, the primary function of the court is to ascertain and enforce the intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreement.” Crum & Forster, 620 N.E.2d at 1078. The parties’ intentions, as unambiguously expressed in writing, control here. We need not, and should not, override the express written intent of the parties by looking to a judicially created test. Thus, we agree with the district court’s position that the Mathis two-part test for determining whether a business pursuits exclusion eliminates coverage does not apply to the different policy language at issue here.