You are not logged in to View Login, Logout and Profile

Click to return to blog page

Homeowner's insurance and the business pursuits exclusion

Buiness pursuit liability coverage exclusions: 2 from the 3rd Circuit

Parker v. American Western Home Ins. Co., 18-392 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/28/18)

Latour v. Allstate Ins. Co., 18-395 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/28/18)

        The Third Circuit released two opinons on December 28, 2018 guiding litigants through the narrows of buisness pursuits exclusions to homeowner's insurance liability coverage.

        The scrutinized activities included a day care operation and rental of an insured property. In Latour, a three judge panel reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment for Allstate Insurance Company on finding that the policyholder breached a duty to properly supervise a child under her paid care. Judge Sylvia Cooks dissented. A five judge panel in Parker held that "there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the property at issue was being leased on an occasional basis," potentially triggering an exception to the exclusion (emphasis added). Judge Cooks authored the Parker opinion.

The majority in Latour looked to "the alleged actions or omissions of the insured upon which liability is asserted and whether those actions further the operation of the daycare." The Parker, opinion quotes The Law of Liability Ins., Rowland Long, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., § 9.06[2]:

Many courts that have examined the definition of business and the business pursuits exclusion agree that a business pursuit must involve two elements: continuity of the activity, and monetary gain, or at least the hope or expectation of monetary gain.

See Parker at p. 8.

        These opinions work remarkably well together to define understandable parameters for analysis of a buisness pursuits exclusion defense.

Posted: Jan. 4, 2019