McDougall v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 10628,10628
• Citation: 485 P.2d 962,94 Idaho 220
• Parties: Isaac McDOUGALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 962

485 P.2d 962

94 Idaho 220

Isaac McDOUGALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 10628.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 8, 1971.

R. M. Whittier, Whittier & McDougall, Pocatello, for plaintiff-appellant.

Wesley F. Merrill, Merrill & Merrill, trict Court, Bannock County, Gus Carr ford Fire Insurance Co.

J. Blaine Anderson, Furchner & Anderson, Blackfoot, for defendants-respondents, Jodi Jan Davis and Jana Davis Bryson.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the interpretation of a 'business exclusion' provision contained in a standard Homeowners insurance policy. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, appellant McDougall had in force and effect such an insurance policy with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The defined premises in the policy were the McDougall home on Sage Drive in Pocatello. McDougall had control of an apartment building at a different address in the city of Pocatello. A young child allegedly sustained injuries from a washing machine on the premises of the apartment house and brought suit against McDougall and others. The facts surrounding said injury and suit are amply set forth and discussed in the recent opinion of this Court, Davis v. McDougall, 480 P.2d 907 (1971).

McDougall made demand upon Hartford for payment of the defense costs involved in that suit and any judgment that might result. Hartford denied coverage on the basis of the 'business activities' exclusion contained in the insurance policy. McDougall initiated the present action seeking a declaratory judgment and the trial court found and concluded that the policy afforded McDougall no coverage. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The policy under consideration herein contained, among others, the following provisions:

'1. Coverage E-personal liability:

a. Liability: To pay on behalf of the insured, all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, and the company shall defend any suit against the insured alleging such bodily injury or property damage and seeking damages which are payable under the terms of this policy, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent; but the Company may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.

* * *

* * *

'Section 2 of this policy does not apply

(a) (1) to any business pursuit of an insured except under coverages E and F, activities therein which are ordinarily incident to nonbusiness pursuits,

(2) to the rendering of any professional service or omission thereof, or

(3) to any act or omission in connection with premises, other than as defined, which are owned, rented, or controlled by the insured, but this subdivision (3) does not apply with respect to bodily injury to a residence employee arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured.'

McDougall contends the above cited language is ambiguous and therefore should be construed strictly against Hartford. It is our opinion that the better view is that expressed in Dieckman v. Moran...