Stewart v. Dryden Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1989 |
| Citation | 156 A.D.2d 951,549 N.Y.S.2d 246 |
| Parties | Barton STEWART and Janet Stewart, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pheterson & Pheterson, by Irving Pheterson, Rochester, for third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Saperston & Day, P.C. by Anthony Piazza, Rochester, for third-party defendant-respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and BOOMER, GREEN, PINE and BALIO, JJ.
The record on this motion for summary judgment shows that periodically over three summers the third-party plaintiffs, the Stewarts, conducted a sale from their barn of articles allegedly accumulated over the years as a hobby. The Stewarts were sued by plaintiff, who alleged that she fell in the Stewarts' barn while viewing the articles offered for sale. The Stewarts forwarded the complaint to the Dryden Mutual Insurance Company, their insurance carrier, which disclaimed coverage based upon a clause in the policy that denied coverage for liability "resulting from activities in connection with an insured's business * * *." The Stewarts brought this third-party action against Dryden for a judgment declaring that Dryden is obligated to defend the Stewarts in the main action. Dryden moved for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated either to defend or to indemnify the Stewarts and the Stewarts cross-moved for summary judgment in their favor. The court granted the motion of Dryden and denied the cross motion of the Stewarts. We modify by denying both the motion and cross motion.
Whether the Stewarts' sale of property upon their premises constituted a "business" within the meaning of the exclusion in the policy depends upon whether they regularly engaged in a particular activity with a view toward earning a livelihood or making a profit. To constitute a business, there must be two elements: "first, continuity and secondly, the profit motive" (Home Ins. Co. v. Aurigemma, 45 Misc.2d 875, 879, 257 N.Y.S.2d 980; see also, Levinson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 42 A.D.2d 811, 346 N.Y.S.2d 428; Fadden v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 51 Misc.2d 858, 862, 274 N.Y.S.2d 235, affd 27 A.D.2d 487, 280 N.Y.S.2d 209; Annotation, Construction and Application of "Business Pursuits" Exclusion Provision in General Liability Policy, 48 ALR3d 1096).
Here, the evidence submitted on the motion for summary judgment raises an issue of fact whether the Stewarts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salimbene v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.
...monthly stipend as union president during the strike at Occidental removed the profit motive element (see, Stewart v. Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 156 A.D.2d 951, 952, 549 N.Y.S.2d 246) from his activities as union president is likewise unpersuasive. The union bylaws submitted by plaintiff on his ......
-
Cardinal v. Long Island Power Authority
...Ins. Co., 261 A.D.2d 896, 897, 690 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y.App. Div., 4th Dep't 1999) (quoting Stewart v. Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 156 A.D.2d 951, 951-52, 549 N.Y.S.2d 246 (N.Y.App. Div., 4th Dep't 1989)); Broome County Coop. Ins. Co. v. Kendall, 178 A.D.2d 709, 710, 576 N.Y.S.2d 945 (N.Y.App. Div.,......
-
United Food Service, Inc. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York
..."regularly engaged in a particular activity with a view toward earning a livelihood or making a profit" (Stewart v. Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 156 A.D.2d 951, 951-952, 549 N.Y.S.2d 246). As a general proposition, "[t]he business pursuit exclusion is intended to apply to all activities that are i......
-
Metalios v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...( see United Food Serv. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 189 A.D.2d 74, 76-77, 594 N.Y.S.2d 887 [1993]; Stewart v. Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 156 A.D.2d 951, 549 N.Y.S.2d 246 [1989]; Home Ins. Co. v. Aurigemma, 45 Misc.2d 875, 879-880, 257 N.Y.S.2d 980 [1965] ). We recognize that a business purpo......