Court Opinion

ID: 9675595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:58:40.3904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.751668
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Language in an insurance policy is to be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Grandpre v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., S.D., 261 N.W.2d 804 (1977). The terms of the policy should be construed according to what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean rather than what the insurer might have intended the language to mean. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Minn., 258 N.W.2d 570 (1977); Wyatt v. Woodmen Accident and Life Company, 194 Neb. 614, 234 N.W.2d 217 (1975). In interpreting TriState’s language under these rules, it becomes clear that the language provides coverage for certain activities of the insured even though those activities might be con-*267neeted with his business pursuits. The TriState homeowner’s, policy specifically excluded coverage for occurrences “arising out of business pursuits of any insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits.” Stated in the positive this means that the policy covered losses arising out of particular business activities that are, for a person engaged in the insured’s business, ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits. Participation in a parade of the kind here involved is not ordinarily incident to the business of operating an implement dealership. It follows that the exception to the exclusion applies, with resulting coverage.
I would affirm.