Buehrer v. Meyers, 2020 Ohio 3207

Infant died after being left unattended on a queen bed while in the paid care of Kristy Meyers at the Meyers' home; parents sued for wrongful death and related claims.
Auto-Owners intervened and sought a declaratory judgment that its homeowners policy excluded coverage because Meyers operated an in-home day care (a business).
Evidence showed Meyers cared for ~10 families (14 children) in 2016, routinely weekdays with set hours, charged $18–$20/day, received weekly payments, and arranged care by texts/verbal agreements.
Meyers testified she considered herself a stay-at-home mom who cared for children for friends/family and did not view it as a formal business; appellants relied on that testimony to oppose summary judgment.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Auto-Owners, holding the policy’s definition excluded coverage for home day care services; appellants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether in-home child care is a "business" under the homeowners policy so exclusion bars coverage	Meyers' testimony that care was informal, infrequent, and not a business creates a factual dispute	Policy expressly defines "business" to include home day care services; undisputed facts show regular paid care to non-relatives, so exclusion applies	Court held as a matter of law Meyers' in-home day care was a "business" excluded from coverage; summary judgment for Auto-Owners affirmed

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio 2003) (contract ambiguity standard: unambiguous policy enforced as written)
Sauer v. Crews, 18 N.E.3d 410 (Ohio 2014) (exclusions construed to apply only when clearly intended)
Laboy v. Grange Indemn. Ins. Co., 41 N.E.3d 1224 (Ohio 2015) (give effect to reasonable interpretation of policy language)
Rhoades v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 374 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio 1978) (policies enforced according to their terms)
Cook v. Kozell, 199 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio 1964) (insured obtains only coverage paid for; courts won’t expand policy for nonparties)
Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 597 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 1992) (exclusion clauses interpreted strictly against insurer)
W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Sluder, 695 N.E.2d 7 (Ohio App. 1997) (regular paid home day care constitutes a business under similar policy language)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vasquez, 599 N.E.2d 756 (Ohio App. 1991) (babysitting business excluded from homeowners coverage)
Am. Family Ins. v. Phillips, 100 N.E.3d 947 (Ohio App. 2017) (two-part test for "business pursuit": continuity and profit motive)