Court Opinion

ID: 9530819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:51.35786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:15.405575
License: Public Domain

HOOVER, P.J.
¶ 16. (concurring). The issue is, what does "conduct of a business" mean in the definition of an insured. The majority says that the phrase is unambiguous. I respectfully disagree, but concur in the result the majority reaches for a different reason.
¶ 17. in concluding that "conduct of business" is unambiguous, the majority relies on foreign authority rather than an analysis of the policy's language. I, however, am not persuaded that the cases relied upon by the majority are of assistance, because they ultimately hold merely that an individual engaged in what is clearly personal activity is unambiguously not an insured under a business liability policy.
¶ 18. Linehan says that "conduct of a business" encompasses owning or maintaining business property. A terse statement of Society's position is that a tortfeasor's liability must arise out of a business activity in furtherance of the business. I view both constructions as reasonable,1 without regard to the potentially absurd results either interpretation might result in. If language in an insurance policy has two reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous, Ennis v. *367Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 225 Wis. 2d 824, 831, 593 N.W.2d 890 (Ct. App. 1999), and is construed in favor of coverage. Id. at 833-34. If Society intends for the phrase to have the meaning it urges on this court, it may so define it in the policy.

 While not dispositive, I note that Judge Carlson accepted Society's construction while the majority agrees with Linehan's interpretation.