DONNIE M. PETERSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT ALLEN PETERSON, A DECEASED MINOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF DONNIE M. PETERSON AND SUSAN M. PETERSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE; MARIAM WALL AND FRED C. WALL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, V. HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Business Pursuits Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The point involved on this appeal is whether an ordinary homeowners insurance policy covered an injury to an infant, who was left with the homeowner who was running a nursery or babysitting service for compensation.
The trial judge found that the homeowner was engaging in a business activity and denied coverage. The policy contained the following business exclusion:
“This policy does not apply * * * 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.”
Examining this exclusion in light of the facts as found by the trial judge, we find no error in his ruling and affirm. Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Gulf American Land Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 17; Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Butler & Company, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 103; Walker v. Connolly, Fla.App. 1974, 299 So. 2d 67.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 516 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…e babysitter was in kitchen preparing lunch; “activity referred to is not preparing lunch, which would ordinarily be incident to a non-business pursuit, but rather to the failure to properly supervise a young child.”); Peterson v. Highland Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (policy containing business exclusion clause did not cover injury to infant who was left with homeowner running babysitting service for compensation); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelsey, 67 Or.App. 349, 678 P. 2d 748 (in banc) (homeowner…
-
O'Conner v. Safeco INS. Co. OF N. Am., 352 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…ial gain. See Annot. 48 A.L.R.3d 1096, 1101 '(1973). Maintenance of the road was too closely related to the business pursuit to be characterized as equivalent to one “ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits.” See Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Davis v. Frederick’s, Inc., 30 Utah 2d 321, 517 P. 2d 1014 (1973); Martinelli v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, 490 S.W. 2d 427 (Mo.App.1972); Burroughs v. Employers Liab. Assur. Corp., 198 So. 2d 202 (La.App.1967). We have con…
-
Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d comprehensive . . . activity for financial gain . . .,” and thus fell within the accepted definition of a “business pursuit.”2 O’Conner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of North America, 352 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1976). Furthermore, it does not matter that the ownership of the apartment house was not [*1244] Gaynor’s only or main oc…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walker v. Connolly, 299 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Boulevard Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gulf Am. Land Corp., 212 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Butler & Co. & Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 297 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)