Peterson v. Highlands Insurance Company

328 So. 2d 49
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 13, 1976
Docket75-303, 75-328
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 328 So. 2d 49 (Peterson v. Highlands Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peterson v. Highlands Insurance Company, 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

328 So.2d 49 (1976)

Donnie M. PETERSON, As Administrator of the Estate of Robert Allen Peterson, a Deceased Minor, for the Benefit of Donnie M. Peterson and Susan M. Peterson, Appellants,
v.
HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.
Mariam WALL and Fred C. Wall, Her Husband, Appellants,
v.
HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 75-303, 75-328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 13, 1976.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1976.

*50 Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Petersons.

Leland E. Stansell, Jr., and Robert A. Glassman, Miami, for Highlands Ins. Co.

Martin J. Schwartz, Gainesville, for Walls.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The point involved on this appeal is whether an ordinary homeowners insurance policy covered an injury to an infant, who was left with the homeowner who was running a nursery or babysitting service for compensation.

The trial judge found that the homeowner was engaging in a business activity and denied coverage. The policy contained the following business exclusion:

* * * * * *
"This policy does not apply * * * 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."
* * * * * *

Examining this exclusion in light of the facts as found by the trial judge, we find no error in his ruling and affirm. Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Gulf American Land Corporation, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So.2d 17; Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp. v. Butler & Company, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So.2d 103; Walker v. Connolly, Fla.App. 1974, 299 So.2d 67.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Boylan
704 A.2d 597 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)
Moncivais v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
430 N.W.2d 438 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1988)
Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co.
516 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Friend
478 So. 2d 1198 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Goodall
658 S.W.2d 32 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1983)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Moore
430 N.E.2d 641 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1981)
Bankers Standard Insurance Co. v. Olwell
309 N.W.2d 799 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Robinson v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.
585 S.W.2d 593 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1979)
Gaynor v. Williams
366 So. 2d 1243 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
O'Conner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Na
352 So. 2d 1244 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Hodge v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
339 So. 2d 279 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
328 So. 2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-highlands-insurance-company-fladistctapp-1976.