Court Opinion

ID: 9658597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:05:59.660545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:53.748015
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that the words "occupation” and "business” in State Farm’s insurance contract necessarily refer only to the insured party’s principal employment or vocation.
The words of the insurance contract provide that there is no coverage for nonowned automobiles while "used in any other business or occupation.” (Emphasis added.) The use of the words "any other” makes it obvious that the exclusion applies to all occupations and businesses of the insured, rather than to only his principal employment. This would necessarily include part-time or ancillary occupations, such as being a volunteer fireman. Reiter v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co, 357 F Supp 1006 (ED Ark, 1973). In Reiter, the court examined the identical exclusion clause, and held *625that the use of the word "any” in reference to business or occupation expressly included part-time work as a volunteer fireman. I would follow the reasoning of Reiter here.
I would reverse.