469_C297
HOMEOWNERS
POLICY BARS WORK-RELATED CLAIM
|
Homeowners |
Business Pursuits |
|
Ambiguity |
|
Stephanie Button brought a
tort action against Patricia Trimble for causing her to fall backwards off her
chair, resulting in a severe back injury. The incident occurred at a CliniTech Services facility, Inc., where Button worked as a
lab assistant and Trimble as a phlebotomist. Trimble was living with her
parents at the time of the alleged tort. Button argued that Trimble's parents' homeowners insurance carrier, Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company, should defend and indemnify Trimble.
The lower court ruled that
Metropolitan was not required to provide a defense or indemnify Trimble because
the incident fell within the "business pursuits" exclusion of the
policy.
The Metropolitan homeowners policy stated that it did not cover "bodily
injury or property damage arising out of or in connection with . . . business
activities." It further stated that this exclusion "applie[d] but [was] not limited to an act or omission,
regardless of its nature or circumstance, involving a service or duty rendered,
promised, owed, or implied to be provided because of the nature of the
business."
On appeal, Button argued that
the business pursuits exclusion was ambiguous and
should be strictly construed against the insurer. The court disagreed. In its
decision it stated that an ambiguity in an insurance policy is not created
simply by the fact that a controversy exists between parties, each favoring an
interpretation contrary to the other party's interpretation. Rather, the
interpretation of the exclusionary clause in an insurance policy was a question
of law for the trial judge and then for the reviewing court.
The court went on to reason
that the manifest design of homeowners insurance is to protect home owners from
risks associated with the home and activities related to the home. Because
Trimble could not reasonably have expected protection under her homeowners policy from a claim arising out of or in
connection with her work, the lower court was right to rule in favor of
Metropolitan.
The lower court's judgment
was affirmed.
Metropolitan Property v.