State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stinnett
| Citation | 389 N.E.2d 668,71 Ill.App.3d 217,27 Ill.Dec. 604 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-4,78-4 |
| Parties | , 27 Ill.Dec. 604 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. STINNETT and Wilma Stinnett, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Hoagland, Maucker, Bernard & Almeter, Alton, for defendants-appellants; James K. Almeter, Alton, of counsel.
Thomas O. Falb, Reed, Armstrong, Gorman & Coffey, Edwardsville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendants, Richard E. and Wilma Stinnett, appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Madison County which found that State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (hereinafter, State Farm) was not obligated under a certain homeowner's insurance police to defend Richard Stinnett in a personal injury action brought against him by Nada Wright or to pay any judgment which might result from that litigation. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's finding that the claim against Richard Stinnett fell within the scope of two exclusionary provisions of the instant policy was correct.
The accident giving rise to the personal injury action against Richard Stinnett occurred on July 20, 1974. At that time Richard and Wilma Stinnett resided at 1002 McKinley Boulevard in Alton, Illinois, and Richard's parents resided on a 118 acre farm which they owned near Gillespie, Illinois. The farm was located approximately 20 miles from the Stinnett's house in Alton. Richard had rented the farm from his father since 1959 on a profit sharing basis. Around 2 or 3 p. m. on that day, Richard was in the process of using a tractor equipped with a sickle mower attachment to mow the weeds which grew in the area between the north edge of a field planted in corn and soybeans and the south edge of a township road that ran east and west. While the tractor was stopped in between the ditch and the road's edge, a car travelling eastward and driven by Nada Wright struck the mower attachment, causing injury to her.
Richard Stinnett testified that he had mowed the area between this cultivated field and the road several times each year since he began renting his father's farm. One of the purposes of this mowing was to prevent the spreading of weeds into the field. Another purpose was to make the farm look good for his father. It was customary for the farmers in the area to cut the weeds along the roads in order to prevent them from spreading into the fields and reducing their yield. They all did it.
The testimony of Prentiss Wild, a licensed surveyor, indicated that the northern property line of the farm owned by Richard Stinnett's father lies on the roadway upon which Nada Wright's car was travelling. In fact, the south edge of the road is six feet south of the farm's property line. Wild also testified that although he did not know what the right-of-way for this particular township road was, the customary right-of-way would extend 40 feet on each side of the roadway.
At the time of the accident, Richard and Wilma Stinnett were named insureds on a State Farm homeowner's policy covering their house in Alton. Under Section II, Coverage E of the policy, State Farm undertook to provide comprehensive personal liability protection to the Stinnetts. That provision obligated State Farm to pay all sums which the Stinnetts became legally obligated to pay as damages for an accident and to defend any action against them seeking such damages. The policy also provided:
"This policy does not apply: (1) Under Coverage E * * * : (d) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits; * * * (or) (e) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of any premises, other than an insured premises, owned, rented or controlled by any insured; * * *."
Under the policy, the term business included farming.
After Nada Wright commenced a personal injury action against Richard based on this accident, State Farm refused the defendants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Towns v. Northern Sec. Ins. Co.
......See City of Burlington v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 163 Vt. 124, 127, 655 A.2d 719, 721 (1994) ("If ...'s claim that groundwater contamination must exceed state or federal enforcement standards to be considered property ..., or furthers the interest of, the business"); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Moore, 103 Ill.App.3d 250, 58 Ill. Dec. ...Co. v. Stinnett, 71 Ill.App.3d 217, 27 Ill.Dec. 604, 389 N.E.2d 668, 670 ......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Moore
...... (State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Stinnett (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 217, 27 Ill.Dec. 604, 389 N.E.2d 668.) The appropriate inquiry is not whether the insured was engaged in a business pursuit at the time of the accident, but whether the particular activity was nevertheless one ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits. (New Jersey ......
-
Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Markogiannakis, s. 1-87-2758
...it was unclear whether the court considered this a defect of the land itself. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Stinnett (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 217, 220, 27 Ill.Dec. 604, 606, 389 N.E.2d 668, 670.) In any event, none of [188 Ill.App.3d 661] the above cases, including Stinnett, lend support ......
-
Industrial Indem. Co. v. Vukmarkovic, 1-89-2706
...... Auto Policy" that was issued by National Union Fire Insurance. . Peter Vukmarkovic was ... (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Moore (1981), 103 Ill.App.3d ...v. Stinnett (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 217, 27 Ill.Dec. 604, 389 N.E.2d 668. ......