Opinion ID: 1303086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Continuity Prong

Text: Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Raynolds' activities did not meet the continuity prong of Fadden. We agree. The court in Fadden defined continuity as a customary engagement or a stated occupation. Id. Fadden does little to explain whether a part-time activity could satisfy the continuity prong. However, in a later case, the New York Court of Appeals clarified the Fadden test: for the purposes of the `business pursuit' exclusion, the `business' engaged in by [the insured] need not necessarily be limited to his sole occupation or employment.... Shapiro v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 47 A.D.2d 856, 365 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1975), aff'd 39 N.Y.2d 204, 383 N.Y.S.2d 263, 347 N.E.2d 624 (1976). Although courts have defined continuous in various ways, a majority of courts have held that a part-time activity may constitute a business pursuit for insurance coverage purposes. For example, in Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co., the plaintiff was bitten when he went to the defendant's house to buy a Saint Bernard puppy. 534 P.2d 1293 (Okla.1974). The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the defendant was engaged in the business of selling puppies even though he was a full-time salesman. Id. at 1298. Other jurisdictions have found that part time activities constitute business pursuits. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Crouch, 140 N.H. 329, 666 A.2d 964 (1995) (an insured's long-standing hobby of automobile repair constituted a business pursuit); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Nunn, 114 N.C.App. 604, 442 S.E.2d 340 (1994) (insured's operation of a bed and breakfast that operated for three months out of the year was a business pursuit); Williams v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 180 Wis.2d 221, 509 N.W.2d 294 (Ct.App.1993) (insured, who was a part-time investor in the stock market, was engaged in a business); Heggen v. Mountain W. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 220 Mont. 398, 715 P.2d 1060 (1986) (insured, who participated in a jackpot steer-roping contest, was engaged in a business); State Farm & Fire Cas. Co. v. Moore, 103 Ill. App.3d 250, 58 Ill.Dec. 609, 430 N.E.2d 641 (1981) (insured's part-time babysitting constituted a business pursuit). In the present case, the parties do not dispute that Ko-Akita Kennels is not the Raynolds' primary occupation. As noted earlier, Mr. Raynolds is a retired engineer, and he and Mrs. Raynolds maintain a retail cosmetic business. Given the amount of time and resources that the Raynolds have contributed to the care, sales, and breeding of their dogs, however, we hold that an activity may be continuous even though it is a part-time activity or a secondary occupation. The Raynolds have been breeding, showing, and selling Akitas for almost fifteen years. Mr. Raynolds spent approximately 120 hours a month caring for the dogs. He also attended dog shows two times a month, each show lasting two to three days. The Raynolds have also spent a considerable amount of time customizing their property to care for the dogs. The Raynolds' activities represent a customary activity or a stated occupation within the meaning of Shapiro. Therefore, the continuity prong of Fadden is satisfied.