Court Opinion

ID: 9626477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:14:01.544217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:28.104481
License: Public Domain

McINTYRE, Justice
(dissenting).
On the basis of the facts related in the majority opinion, I would hold the trial court erred in its conclusion that Mrs. Boode received her injuries while acting within the course of her employment.
The evidence, as I review the record, shows clearly that all travel in Wolfe’s car had to do with the horse transaction between Wolfe and Mrs. Boode. When they met the prospective purchaser of the drilling rig at Ucross and from that point went with the prospective purchaser in his automobile to Arvada and back to Ucross, they were then, in my opinion, on a side trip which was legal business.
To me, it is significant that different vehicles were used for the different purposes. Inasmuch as Suranyi, the prospective purchaser of the drilling rig, was in Wolfe’s office before driving to Ucross, it would appear the horse transaction was the primary consideration in causing Wolfe and Mrs. Boode to take Wolfe’s car to Ucross, where they met Suranyi and rode from there to Arvada and back with Suranyi.
The insurance company seeks to avoid liability under an exclusionary clause of the insurance policy, and it has the burden to show the clause clearly applies. In my opinion, the insurance company failed to present any cogent argument showing that the part of the trip relating to the drilling rig deal was not completed when Suranyi returned Wolfe and Mrs. Boode to Ucross, where he had picked them up.
I would reverse the holding that the insurance company is relieved of liability.