Standard Mutual Insurance v. Chastain
Standard Mutual Insurance v. Chastain
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Instead of watching the children for whom she provided home-based daycare,
This dispute revolves around the business pursuits exclusion provision in Kidd’s homeowner insurance policy, which provides that medical payments to others do not apply to bodily injury “[ajrising out of or in connection with a ‘business’ engaged in by an ‘insured.’ This exclusion applies but is not limited to an act or omission, regardless of its nature or circumstance, involving a service or duty rendered, promised, owed, or implied to be provided because of the nature of the ‘business.’ ” Despite lengthy, and often tortured, arguments to the contrary, Chastain has not demonstrated that Kidd’s failure to supervise properly the children in her care, which resulted in Chastain’s injury, was not an omission of a duty owed because of the nature of her daycare business. Indeed, Kidd did owe a duty of care to the children because of the nature of her business, and her failure to comply with that duty was an omission. The business pursuits exclusion provision applies, and as a result, Standard Mutual has no duty to defend or indemnify Kidd against Chastain’s lawsuit
Affirmed
. The duty to defend and indemnify arises only for bodily injury covered by the policy.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STANDARD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Aaron Joseph CHASTAIN, a Minor, b/n/f Jamie L. Chastain and Jeffrey S. Chastain
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published