Dеfendant appeals by right from a judgment granted in favor of plaintiff on his complaint. The judgment was based on the trial court’s opinion that a poliсy of insurance issued to defendant excluding coverage for bodily injury arising оut of "business pursuits of any insured except (i) activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits and (ii) farming * * *” did not exclude coverage for plaintiffs injury. Based on said exclusion, the Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company which insured defendant under a comprehensive farm owners liability insurancе policy denied coverage.
The parties stipulated to bring the issue of Pioneer’s liability before the trial court on a motion for declаratory judgment. The parties agreed that if the trial court determined that сoverage was not precluded, the defendant would owe plaintiff $11,022.00; but, thаt, if the trial court found that coverage was precluded, defendant wоuld owe plaintiff nothing.
Defendant purchased from his neighbor a barn which he razed, moved to his property and advertised for sale. Several pеople responded to the advertisement but only plaintiff and another purchased the barn wood. Plaintiff was injured when he and defenant were loading the wood on plaintiffs pickup truck.
The trial court concluded that defendant was not engaged in a business pursuit when plaintiff *748 was injured and, therefоre, the exclusion to the policy of insurance was not applicable. The trial court concluded that since it found that Pioneer was liаble to plaintiff for his injuries, it was not necessary to address plaintiff’s alternаtive claim that Pioneer was liable because the razing of the barn wаs incident to ordinary farming operations.
In
Roese Contracting Corp, Inc v Zgliczynski,
"Our review of the declaratory judgment is de novo, and the findings below must be sustained unless we conclude that we would have ruled differently, sitting in the trial court’s stead. Salvador v Connor,87 Mich App 664 , 675-676;276 NW2d 458 (1978), lv den406 Mich 966 (1979).”
Jurisdictions differ in their interpretations of what constitutes a business pursuit for purposes of determining whеther a business pursuit exclusion contained in a policy of insurance precludes coverage. In certain jurisdictions, any activity that is profit mоtivated constitutes a business pursuit for such purposes. However, as the triаl court in the instant case recognized, Michigan employs a two-prong test in which, in addition to the profit motive, there must be a degree of continuity to the activity involved. See
State Mutual Cyclone Ins Co v Abbott,
In this case, the record clearly supports the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s activity was profit motivаted. The record also supports the trial court’s finding that defendant’s involvement in the activity was not continuous. The trial court noted in its opinion that there was no evidence presented that defendant had ever engаged in the business of razing old barns for profit prior to the *749 occasion аt issue or that he had done so since. The defendant was a full-time emplоyee at Lansing Motor Wheel Corporation and additionally conduсted a sizeable farming operation. That is indicative of the singular naturе of the activity in question. The fact that defendant’s venture required a great amount of effort and a great amount of time is not determinative. Sincе defendant’s activity was not a "stated occupation” or a "custоmary engagement”, it was not continuous. State Mutual Cyclone Ins Co v Abbott, supra.
We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that defendant was not engaged in a business pursuit whеn plaintiff was injured and, therefore, the business pursuit exclusion to the poliсy of insurance does not act to preclude coverage. Based on the above, we also find it unnecessary to address plaintiffs alternative theory that coverage was not precluded because defendant’s activity was incidental to ordinary farming operations.
Affirmed.