Court Opinion

ID: 9570182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:20:49.231251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:16.741993
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority but think that much of its discussion is unnecessary to the decision.
In interpreting a policy of insurance, we must read the policy as we believe it would be understood by a reasonable person in the position of the insured. Totten v. New York Life Ins. Co., 298 Or 765, 771, 696 P2d 1082 (1985); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. White, 60 Or App 666, 655 P2d 599 (1982), rev den 294 Or 569 (1983). That task is usually for the court. When, however, the meaning of a policy may be reasonably understood by different insureds to mean different things, depending on the circumstances, the question whether the policy covers a particular occurrence may be for the fact-finder.
*397Because I agree that a question of fact exists whether vacuuming would ordinarily be considered a business or a nonbusiness activity under the facts of this case, the trial court, as trier of fact, could properly resolve that question. We may not disturb its finding that vacuuming in this context was a business activity. Accordingly, there is no occasion to discuss Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kelsey, 67 Or App 349, 678 P2d 748, rev den 297 Or 227 (1984).
I believe that Kelsey was incorrectly decided for the reasons stated in my dissent in that case. It is interesting, however, that the majority here adopts, in part, the view of the problem which I advocated in Kelsey; that is, in short, “that injuries incurred in connection with business pursuits are not covered when the activity which causes harm is in the business context for a business purpose. * * * [W]hen the harm producing activity is in the business context for a nonbusiness purpose, there is coverage.” 67 Or App at 357 (Warren, J., dissenting). Because in this case there was evidence that the harm producing activity \yas in the business context and for a business purpose, coverage was properly denied.