Insurance – Civil Battery – 'Business Pursuits' Exclusion

Listen to this article

Where (1) an employee suffered a back injury when she fell over after a fellow employee allegedly poked her to get her attention and (2) a plaintiff insurance company, which issued the alleged assailant’s parents a homeowner’s insurance police, thereafter sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether it had a duty to defend and indemnify the alleged assailant in a civil battery suit filed by the purported victim, a Superior Court judge acted properly in ruling that the plaintiff had no such duty in light of a “business pursuits” exclusion in the subject policy.

Affirmed.

Appeals Court’s Comments

“Given the expansive meaning of ‘arising out of’ and ‘in connection with,’ it is clear that the business pursuits exclusion applies because the alleged battery inflicted by [Patricia Trimble] is associated with, related to, and linked to Trimble’s performing work for her employer. It is incontrovertible that if Trimble had not been performing a task for her employer she would not have been on her employer’s premises at the time and place the injury to [Stephanie] Button occurred. …”

The full text of this decision can be found on Lawyers Weekly’s website, malwdev.wpengine.com.

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Fitchburg Mutual Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-235-03) (8 pages) (Porada, J.) (Appeals Court) Case heard by Grabau, J., in the Superior Court. Scott D. Peterson for the defendant; John P. Graceffa and Richard W. Jensen for the plaintiff (Docket No. 01-P-344) (Aug. 18, 2003).