Shelter Ins. Co. v. Hudson, CA

Decision Date10 December 1986
Docket NumberNo. CA,CA
PartiesSHELTER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carl and Lois HUDSON, Appellees. 86-228.
CourtArkansas Court of Appeals

Adams Law Firm by Donald J. Adams, Harrison, Matthews & Sanders by Marci L. Talbot, Little Rock, for appellant.

Walker & Campbell Law Firm by Gail Inman-Campbell, Harrison, for appellees.

COOPER, Judge.

The appellees purchased from the appellant a standard homeowners' policy to cover their home and three outbuildings on thirteen acres in Boone County, Arkansas. The policy language which defined coverage stated that the policy did not cover "structures used to any extent for business purposes" and defined "business" as "any full time or part time trade, profession or occupation." The appellees' barn was damaged by a windstorm, and they filed a claim. The appellant denied coverage because, subsequent to purchasing the policy, the appellees purchased eleven head of cattle which they kept on the premises, and they allowed their son to keep nine head of cattle on the premises. Shelter contended that the appellees were in the cattle business and that there was no coverage for a loss to structures used for business purposes. The trial court, sitting as the finder of fact, found that the limited number of cattle owned by the appellees did not constitute a "business" under the terms of the policy; that there was no evidence that the barn was used in business and awarded a judgment to the appellee for $1,743.00, twelve percent statutory penalty plus their costs and attorney's fees of $500.00. From this judgment, the appellant appeals, contending that the trial court's findings that the business exclusion did not apply is clearly erroneous. We disagree and affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to section (a) of our per curiam In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

The law in Arkansas is that a loss suffered by an insured is a covered one unless it is excluded by an exception. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Martens, 5 Ark.App. 157, 633 S.W.2d 715 (1982). Courts are required to strictly interpret exclusions to insurance coverage and to resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of an insured. Geurin Contractors, Inc. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 5 Ark.App. 229, 636 S.W.2d 638 (1982). Whether an activity is a business pursuit is almost always a factual question presented for the determination by a court. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Reynolds, 11 Ark.App. 141, 667 S.W.2d 664 (1984).

Here, the appellant contends that, because the appellee Carl Hudson gave the response "admitted" to the appellant's request "[p]lease admit that the barn described in the plaintiff's complaint was used to help raise cattle," he acknowledged that the barn was used for business purposes. The appellee Hudson, however, did not admit he raised the cattle for business purposes but testified that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nelke v. State, CA
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • December 10, 1986
    ... ... See Hudson v. State, 175 Ind.App. 237, 370 N.E.2d 983 (1977); Arnett, 370 S.W.2d 169; Wright, 433 A.2d 511 ... ...
  • Zulpo v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2007
    ...502, 221 S.W.3d 373 (2006). Usually, whether an activity is a business pursuit is a factual question. Shelter Insurance Co. v. Hudson, 19 Ark.App. 296, 720 S.W.2d 326 (1986); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 11 Ark.App. 141, 667 S.W.2d 664 Ordinarily, the question of whether the lan......
  • McGarrah by McGarrah v. Southwestern Glass Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1993
    ...of review. In Arkansas, a loss suffered by an insured is a covered one unless it is excluded by an exception. Shelter Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 19 Ark.App. 296, 720 S.W.2d 326 (1986). Courts are required to strictly interpret exclusions to insurance coverage and to resolve all reasonable doubt in......
  • Hooper-Bond Ltd. Partnership Fund III v. Ragar, HOOPER-BOND
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1988
    ...and the weight to be given to their testimony. See McDermott v. Strauss, 283 Ark. 444, 678 S.W.2d 334 (1984); Shelter Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 19 Ark. App. 296, 720 S.W.2d 326 (1986); ARCP Rule In his motion, appellee Don Ragar requested $35,000 to compensate his wife, Christine Ragar, a real es......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT