A woman who was an insured under a homeowners policy regularly provided home day care services for a young couple, in their house for pay, by looking after their two small children while they worked. She baby-sat in the home three days a week for eight hours per day.

The insured fixed lunch each day for the older child and herself. She spilled boiling water on herself while pouring it from a tea kettle into her cup, causing her to lose control of the kettle and splash water on the smaller child, who was playing on the floor. Injuries to the child resulted in a lawsuit by her parents against the baby-sitter. Her insurer claimed no obligation under the homeowners policy because of a personal liability coverage exclusion for bodily injury:

"....arising out of business pursuits of an insured...." The exclusion was modified by a provision that it did not apply to "activities which are usual to non-business pursuits." An endorsement amplified the pertinent language as follows: "If an insured regularly provides home day care services to a person or persons other than insureds and receives monetary or other compensation for such services, that enterprise is a business pursuit." The insurance company filed an action for declaratory judgment to determine the question of coverage. Trial court judgment in favor of the insurer was appealed by the insured baby-sitter and her husband.

They argued that "the activity which formed the basis of liability was the pouring of boiling water by (the baby-sitter) to make tea for herself and this is an activity which is usual to a non-business pursuit."

The insurer contended, on appeal, that the trial court was correct in its finding because "the activity which formed the basis of alleged liability was the preparation of lunch, in furtherance of the insured's business pursuit."

The appeal court cited numerous cases, pro and con, relative to the application of the standard exception to the "business pursuits" exclusion. It concluded that, in the circumstances under review, the exclusion applied and the exception did not. The preparation of lunch was part and parcel of the woman's duties as a baby-sitter.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the insureds.

(MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, Respondent v. HAYES ET AL., Defendants, Appellants. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four. No. 60567. April 7, 1992. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3716.)