Court Opinion

ID: 9625274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:34:05.782245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:04.550027
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially on rehearing.
I agree with the opinion as written in the elimination of coverage under the so-called no fault provisions of this insurance contract. As to the general liability features, where the insured Davis is driving a nonowned automobile, the following policy provisions apply:
"V. Use of other automobiles. If the named insured... owns a private passenger automobile covered by this policy, such insurance as is afforded . . . applies with respect to any other automobile subject to the following provisions:
"(d) This insuring agreement does not apply,... (2) to any accident arising out of the operation of an automobile . . . repair shop; (3). . . to any automobile while used in a business or occupation of such named insured... except a private passenger automobile operated... by such named *155insured.”
- I do not agree with most of what has been added on the motion to rehear, but do agree with the result reached. I believe that test driving a vehicle is a part of the operation of an automobile repair shop, and that there is a general liability exclusion under exclusion V (d) (2). I do not believe that there is an exclusion under V (d) (3), because Davis, the named insured, was in the business of repairing cars, and repairing cars was his occupation. I do not think he has to own the business for either the exclusion or the exception thereto to apply.