Great Divide Insurance Co. v. Carpenter Ex Rel. Reed

A. Introduction

I disagree with this court's conclusion that the insurance policy covered Raymond Carpenter's claims. I therefore respectfully dissent. The activity that injured Raymond Carpenter, cutting down a tree, was not one of the two classified operations-floor covering and sheet-metal work-covered by the policy. Nor is it reasonable to view this activity as an "incidental support activity" to the operations the policy actually did cover. Finally, I think it important not to confuse the operation that harmed Carpenter-cut*618ting down treee-with its purpose-gathering fuel.

B. Facts

Great…