Safeco Ins. Co. v. Leslie
| Citation | 276 Or. 221,554 P.2d 469 |
| Parties | SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. John LESLIE and Junior L. Walden, Appellants, Chadric A. Pugh, dba North Unit Shell and dba Pugh Oil Company and State Accident Insurance Fund, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1976 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
David C. Glenn, Madras, argued the cause for appellant John Leslie. With him on the briefs were Rodriguez & Neilson, Madras.
Gordon W. Stewart, Madras, argued the cause for appellant Junior L. Walden. With him on the briefs was Douglas A. Shepard, Madras.
Donald J. Friedman, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Black, Kendall, Tremaine, Boothe & Higgins, Portland.
Before O'CONNELL,* and McALLISTER, DENECKE,** TONGUE, and BRYSON, JJ.
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding filed by Safeco Insurance Company to determine whether it is liable under its homeowner's policy for damages resulting from the accidental discharge of a handgun owned by its insured John Leslie. The trial court found that the accident was excluded from the coverage of the policy. The defendant John Leslie and the injured party, defendant Junior L. Walden, appeal.
On the evening of February 18, 1972 defendant John Leslie took a loaded .357 magnum revolver to the service station where he worked part time as attendant. He placed the revolver under his coat in the supply room, which was fifteen to twenty feet away from the office portion of the station and was separated from it by the lube room and two sliding doors. The owner of the service station was present, although Leslie usually worked alone on Friday evenings.
Junior L. Walden, a truck driver for the same employer, went into the supply room in the course of his work to get some boxes. He accidentally knocked the gun to the floor and it discharged, wounding him.
After Walden brought an action for damages against Leslie and his employer, Safeco brought this proceeding, contending that it is not liable for Leslie's defense nor for damages from the accident.
The issue on appeal is whether coverage of this accident is excluded under the following clause of Leslie's homeowner's insurance policy issued by Safeco:
'This policy does not apply:
'1. Under Coverage E--Personal Liability * * *
'Business' is defined in the policy as a 'trade, profession or occupation.' Under this definition, Leslie's work as gas station attendant constituted a business pursuit. 1
This court has uniformly held that declaratory judgment proceedings to determine coverage under insurance policies are legal in nature rather than equitable and that we are bound by the findings of the trial court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pasiak
...was family pet; it was not kept for security purposes, as mascot or any function associated with business), with Safeco Ins. Co. v. Leslie, 276 Or. 221, 224, 554 P.2d 469 (1976) (exclusion applied to injury from accidental discharge of gun kept by service station employee when he brought gu......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelsey
...liability or coverage any more than if she had left a loaded shotgun in a place where the child could reach it. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Leslie, 276 Or. 221, 554 P.2d 469 (1976), on which Kelsey relies, is inapposite. There, the insured had taken a gun to the service station where he worked. Anot......
-
Douglas County v. Briggs
...we are bound by the factual findings of the trial court if they are supported by substantial evidence. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Leslie, 276 Or. 221, 554 P.2d 469 (1976). As noted in the text, we find that the evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion is compelling. On de novo review we wou......
-
Bullock v. Pariser
...security. See Neal Page 1290 v. Celina Mut. Ins. Co., Ky.App., 522 S.W.2d 179 (1975); Safeco Insurance Co. v. [311 Pa.Super. 493] Leslie, 276 Or. 221, 554 P.2d 469 (1976); Kermans v. Pendleton, 62 Mich.App. 576, 233 N.W.2d 658 (1975). We are mindful that, as appellant notes, ambiguities in ......