2015 Ohio 5406
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Samuel and Annie Bullock purchased a 10.6-acre property with a barn and obtained an Erie homeowners policy (8/8/2013–8/8/2014) that excluded coverage for structures “used in whole or in part for business purposes” and defined "business" to include farming.
- The Bullocks began raising chickens and turkeys (started as gifts in 2012), expanded the flock to hundreds, bought supplies, branded egg cartons “Nickel Plate Farms,” and obtained Department of Agriculture and county retail food licenses.
- Beginning in 2013 they sold eggs and poultry at church, from their home, and at a farmers’ market; Bullock testified customers called 2–3 times daily to order eggs. He also described the activity as a hobby and ministry and testified it did not net profit.
- The barn that housed poultry burned on March 20, 2014; the Bullocks filed a claim under their homeowners policy and Erie filed for declaratory judgment denying coverage under the business exclusion.
- Erie moved for summary judgment; the trial court found the poultry operation constituted a “business” (full-time, part-time or occasional activity engaged as a trade/profession/occupation), applied the policy exclusion, and granted summary judgment for Erie.
- The Bullocks appealed, arguing the evidence created genuine factual disputes — specifically that the operation was a hobby (no profit motive) and that the court improperly focused on a single factor in making a factual determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Erie) | Defendant's Argument (Bullock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the poultry operation qualifies as a “business” under the policy (vs. hobby) | Operation meets policy definition: continuity and profit motive present; therefore exclusion applies | Operation was a hobby/ministerial activity with no real profit motive; profit small (< $500) and owner’s testimony creates factual dispute | Court held it was a business (continuity + profit motive satisfied); exclusion applies, no coverage |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because facts were disputed / court relied on a single factor | Record (licenses, branding, sales, regular customer calls, investment of supplies, expansion) permits only one reasonable conclusion — a business; no genuine issue of material fact | Trial court improperly resolved factual issues and overemphasized profit; jury should decide credibility and motive | Court held summary judgment appropriate—reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion adverse to Bullocks; court did not err in weighing the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 87 Ohio St.3d 270 (rule that insurance contract construction is a question of law)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (insurer intent and plain meaning govern policy interpretation)
- Hounshell v. Am. States Ins. Co., 67 Ohio St.2d 427 (summary judgment standard — no genuine issue of material fact)
- Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Browning-Ferris Inds. of Ohio, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 321 (court may not resolve ambiguities in evidence on summary judgment)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (de novo standard reiterated for appeals)
- Drescher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)