Legal Opinion
Pacific Indemnity Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 11, 1997No. 15484PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*27 Opinion
BERDON, J.
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the boarding of horses constitutes a “business pursuit” excluded from the coverage of a homeowner’s insurance policy. The plaintiff, Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company (Pacific), appeals from a judgment of the trial court in which the court concluded that the boarding of horses by Pacific’s insureds constituted a business pursuit as defined in an exclusion to the homeowner’s insurance policy issued by the defendant, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna). We affirm the judgment of the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Wiley v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Hansen v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Asbury v. Indiana Union Mutual Insurance Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1982
- Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Moore v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- William J. Kerin v. United States Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Enviro Express, Inc. v. AIU InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. PasiakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.