Legal Opinion

Stoughton v. Mutual of Enumclaw

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 20, 1991No. 26443-5-IPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Webster, A.C.J.

Mutual of Enumclaw insured Richard Kays under a homeowners policy containing a "business pursuits" exclusion. The trial court granted summary judgment against Mutual of Enumclaw, concluding that Kays's part-time employment under the facts of this case did not comprise a "business pursuit". We reverse.

Facts

Kays retired in 1983 at the age of 50 from Seattle City Light, where he had been employed as a power dispatcher. During the first 3 years of his retirement, Kays worked to maintain his home and property. Beginning in 1986, Kays performed odd jobs for various people including…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dairyland Insurance v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Wiley v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
  3. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. DrasinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Lawrence v. Northwest Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Home Insurance v. AurigemmaNew York Supreme Court · 1965

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stuart v. American States InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Stuart v. American States Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Springer v. Erie Insurance ExchangeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  4. Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1992
  5. Stuart v. American States InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API