167 A.3d 326
Vt.2017Background
- Shriner owned a home with a garage where he operated a glassblowing enterprise (Church and Maple Glass Studio) after moving equipment there in 2008–2009.
- From 2009–2012 he produced and sold glassware intermittently (about once per week on average), reported Schedule C business income and expenses to the IRS, and earned material revenue from glass sales.
- A January 12, 2012 furnace-exhaust malfunction caused a fire that destroyed the garage and equipment.
- Shriner’s homeowner policy with Amica provided fire and replacement coverage but contained a business exclusion and limited coverage for property used primarily for business to $2,500; a Vermont endorsement defined “business” to include a trade, profession, or occupation (full-, part-time, or occasional) and listed certain exceptions.
- Amica initially paid limited amounts, then denied replacement coverage for the garage and business property under the business exclusion; Shriner sued. The trial court granted summary judgment to Amica; Shriner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy’s business exclusion applies to Shriner’s glassblowing | Shriner: endorsement should be read with deleted standard-form language so part-time/occasional activities are excluded from “business,” making the garage and equipment covered | Amica: Vermont endorsement unambiguously defines business to include trade/profession/occupation on full-, part-time, or occasional basis; Shriner’s glassblowing therefore fits exclusion | Court: endorsement controls; Shriner conceded activity was a trade/profession/occupation; exclusion unambiguously applies and bars coverage |
| Whether endorsement language is ambiguous and thus construed for insured | Shriner: deleting standard-form text and replacing it creates ambiguity that must be read against insurer | Amica: endorsement plainly alters/deletes the standard definition and must be applied; deleted language cannot create ambiguity | Court: endorsement unambiguously expanded exclusion; deleted standard definition is inoperative; no ambiguity to resolve against insurer |
| Whether intermittent/part-time profit-making activity can be a “business” under homeowner policy | Shriner: occasional art-sales aimed at offsetting hobby costs should not be treated as excluded business | Amica: IRS Schedule C, consistent sales and expenses, storage and use of equipment in garage, and profit motive show business purpose | Court: part-time/occasional, profit-generating glassblowing qualifies as business; the exclusion applies |
| Whether insurer met its burden to show exclusion applies | Shriner: asserts policy should cover loss | Amica: bears burden and demonstrated exclusion via endorsement and undisputed facts | Court: Amica met its burden; summary judgment for insurer affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Co-op. Ins. Cos. v. Woodward, 45 A.3d 89 (Vt. 2012) (summary-judgment and policy-interpretation standards)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Co., 862 A.2d 251 (Vt. 2004) (insurance-policy interpretation principles; give effect to plain language)
- N. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Perron, 777 A.2d 151 (Vt. 2001) (insurer bears burden to show policy exclusion)
- Lundeau v. Peerless Ins. Co., 750 A.2d 1031 (Vt. 2000) (homeowner policies insure personal sphere and exclude regular income-producing activities)
- Towns v. N. Sec. Ins. Co., 964 A.2d 1150 (Vt. 2008) (context-specific inquiry distinguishing business vs. nonbusiness pursuits in homeowner policies)