Court Opinion

ID: 9682693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:14:55.221551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.673379
License: Public Domain

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Two issues are raised in this appeal. First, did the death of Michael Johnson arise out of the business pursuits of the insured Theresa Goodall. The majority opinion tacitly concedes this issue by dealing with the exception to the policy exclusion rather than the exclusion itself.
Second, given the business pursuits of the insured, did the death arise out of an activity which was “ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits.” In order for the activity to be an exception to the exclusionary clause, it must be one which is not associated or related in any way to the insured’s business pursuits. Martinelli v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, 490 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.App.1972). The activity in this case is the alleged failure to properly supervise a young child, a duty which flows directly from the business pursuits of the insured. Stanley v. American Fire and Casualty Co., 361 So.2d 1030 (Ala.1978).
I therefore disagree with the majority and would reverse the judgment of the trial court.