Court Opinion

ID: 7878916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 21:18:58.428427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:31:29.820322
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the majority opinion. Although the issue is close, I believe the facts adequately support the trial court’s decision that the insurer’s duty to defend extended to a liability claim arising from use of the insured’s vehicle during a one-time loan to the insured’s church. The $250 payment from the church, in these limited circumstances, more nearly reflects the insured’s costs or loss of use rather than operation of a vehicle “to carry persons or property for a fee.” The policy arguably excludes coverage only when property or persons are transported for a specific fee, and the record does not indicate that the church youth themselves were charged a fee for transport to the Appalachia Mountain Project.