Stoughton v. Mutual of Enumclaw
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Dairyland Insurance v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1974
- Wiley v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. DrasinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Lawrence v. Northwest Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1957
- Home Insurance v. AurigemmaNew York Supreme Court · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Stuart v. American States InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Stuart v. American States Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
- Springer v. Erie Insurance ExchangeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Tewell, Thorpe & Findlay, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1992
- Stuart v. American States InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.