AFFIRMED. In this dispute over coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellee-insurer and against the appellant-insured on three (3) different grounds. We affirm because we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the incident in question was excluded under a business pursuits exclusion in the policy. We believe the trial court was correct in concluding that there was no dispute that the incident in question arose out of a business pursuit of the insured. Cf. State Farm Casualty Co. v. Friend, 478 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1986).