Court Opinion

ID: 9625472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:42:10.856881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:08.964956
License: Public Domain

Green, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result because there is substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the shooting was intentional, rather than accidental. Consequently, there is no insurance coverage. Having so concluded, it is unnecessary to reach the remaining issues.
Since the majority has discussed the other issues, I must respectfully express my disagreement with that portion of the majority's opinion which sustains the jury's conclusion that the shooting was an activity not ordinarily incident to nonbusiness pursuits. In my view, while the shooting may have arisen out of a business activity, it is expressly excepted from exclusion (d):
*352d. to bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any Insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits.
(Italics mine.) We should hold as a matter of law that an intentional shooting is "ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits" and, therefore, not within this particular exclusion. I am unable to conceive of a situation where an intentional shooting is incident to a legitimate business activity. To the extent that the majority concludes to the contrary, I must register my dissent.
Reconsideration denied March 5,1979.