AMCO Ins. Co. v. Beck
Citation | 261 Kan. 266,929 P.2d 162 |
Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 76290,76290 |
Parties | AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gerald BECK and Christa Beck, husband and wife; and Teri Beck, a minor; Defendants, and John Moran and Susan Moran, husband and wife; and Courtney Moran, a minor, Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The language of a policy of insurance, like any other contract, must, if possible, be construed in such a manner as to give effect to the intention of the parties.
2. A business pursuit which falls within a business exclusion in an insurance policy consists of two elements: continuity and profit motive. As to the first, there must be a customary engagement or a stated occupation; as to the latter, there must be shown to be such activity as a means of livelihood, gainful employment, means of earning a living, procuring subsistence or profit, commercial transactions, or engagements.
Paula J. Wright, of Clark, Mize & Linville, Chartered, Salina, argued the cause, and was on the briefs, for appellant.
Richard A. Boeckman, of Keenan & Boeckman Law Firm, P.A., Great Bend, argued the cause, and Martin J. Keenan, of the same firm, was with him, on the brief, for appellees.
The trial court held that the business exclusion in the insureds' homeowner's policy did not preclude liability coverage concerning a claim made against the insureds arising out of the insureds' teenage daughter's babysitting activities. We agree.
AMCO Insurance Company sold Gerald and Christa Beck a homeowner's insurance policy which included liability coverage for the Beck family, including the Becks' 15-year-old daughter, Teri Beck. While Teri was babysitting John and Susan Moran's two children, one of the children, Courtney Moran, suffered burns over her head, body, and extremities.
The Morans brought suit against Teri Beck on behalf of their daughter, Courtney. AMCO filed a declaratory judgment action against Gerald, Christa, and Teri Beck, as well as John, Susan, and Courtney Moran, asking the trial court to determine whether the homeowner's policy provided coverage for the suit filed against Teri Beck. The trial court found that the policy's business exclusion did not preclude coverage, and AMCO appealed.
This case was originally before this court in AMCO Ins. Co. v. Beck, 258 Kan. 726, 907 P.2d 137 (1995). However, while the business exclusion question had been decided, there were still some issues regarding coverage which had not yet been decided. Thus, we held the order appealed from was not a final order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. AMCO subsequently abandoned the remaining issues and consented to entry of a final judgment on the business exclusion issue. AMCO appealed again to the Kansas Court of Appeals, and the case was transferred to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
The sole issue before this court is whether the policy's business exclusion precluded coverage for a suit filed against Teri Beck by the Morans to recover damages for Courtney's injuries.
The parties filed a stipulation of facts, which provides:
Based on these stipulated facts, the trial court found that Teri Beck's babysitting services did not constitute a business and that the insurance policy's business exclusion did not apply and could not preclude coverage of the Becks' claim against AMCO. AMCO challenges this ruling.
This case calls for the interpretation of an insurance policy. Insurance policies are considered contracts. Levier v. Koppenheffer, 19 Kan.App.2d 971, 976, 879 P.2d 40, rev. denied 255 Kan. 1002 (1994). The interpretation and construction of a contract is a question of law. A trial court's interpretation of a contract may be reviewed by this court with an unlimited de novo standard of review. Harris v. Richards, 254 Kan. 549, 552, 867 P.2d 325 (1994); Spivey v. Safeco Ins. Co., 254 Kan. 237, 240, 865 P.2d 182 (1993). However, "[t]he language of a policy of insurance, like any other contract, must, if possible, be construed in such manner as to give effect to the intention of the parties." Catholic Diocese of Dodge City v. Raymer, 251 Kan. 689, 693, 840 P.2d 456 (1992).
The homeowner's insurance policy at issue insured defendants Gerald and Christa Beck and any person under the age of 21 in the care of the Becks. Thus, Teri Beck was insured by the policy. Under the exclusions section, the policy stated that coverage did not apply to bodily injury "arising out of business pursuits of an insured," unless the activity causing the injury was usual to nonbusiness pursuits. This exclusion was amended in a 1987 endorsement to state that liability insurance coverage did not apply to bodily injury The insurance policy defined "business" as including a "trade, profession or occupation." The policy also contained an exclusion which specifically applied to babysitting services performed in one's own home. Since Teri Beck's babysitting services occurred in the Moran home, not her own home, this exclusion does not apply. Thus, the question is whether Teri Beck's babysitting activities fell within the business exclusion as a trade, profession, or occupation so that coverage of the Becks' claim is precluded.
The Kansas Court of Appeals has previously decided two cases dealing with this issue. Krings v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 6 Kan.App.2d 391, 628 P.2d 1071 (1981), discusses a "business pursuits" exclusion in general, while Susnik v. Western Indemnity Co., 14 Kan.App.2d 421, 795 P.2d 71, rev. denied 245 Kan. 788 (1989), deals specifically with whether a "business pursuits" exclusion applies to babysitting services.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Springer v. Erie Ins. Exch.
...was undertaken for a monetary gain.” Id. Some of our sister courts have embraced this functional analysis. In AMCO Ins. Co. v. Beck, 261 Kan. 266, 929 P.2d 162 (1996), for instance, a couple sought coverage under their homeowners' insurance policy when their teenage daughter was babysitting......
-
Springer v. Erie Ins. Exch., 79
...activity was undertaken for a monetary gain." Id. Some of our sister courts have embraced this functional analysis. In AMCO Ins. Co. v. Beck, 929 P.2d 162 (Kan. 1996), for instance, a couple sought coverage under their homeowners' insurance policy when their teenage daughter was babysitting......
-
Griffitts & Coder Custom Chopping, LLC v. CNH Indus. Am. LLC
...judgment facts establish that Griffitts and Coder are directly liable on the Leases and not merely guarantors. See AMCO Ins. v. Beck , 261 Kan. 266, 929 P.2d 162, 165 (1996) ("The interpretation and construction of a contract is a question of law." (internal citations omitted))Second , defe......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Vita Craft Corp.
...512 P.2d at 406. The interpretation of an insurance policy, like other contracts, is a question of law. See AMCO Ins. Co. v. Beck, 261 Kan. 266, 269, 929 P.2d 162, 165 (1996). Courts give the terms in an insurance policy their plain and ordinary meaning unless the parties have expressed a c......