6.3 Commercial Use Exclusion[72]

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

In Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Loesche,^[73] the court implicitly upheld a commercial automobile exclusion without reference to Arizona's Financial Responsibility Act. The policy exclusion read:

EXCLUSIONS:

This insurance does not apply:

(a) to bodily injury or death sustained in the course of his occupation by any person while engaged (1) in duties incident to the operation, loading or unloading of, or as an assistant on a public or livery conveyance or commercial automobile, or (2) in duties incident to the repair or servicing of automobiles.^[74]

Central to the court's analysis was the character of use of the vehicle:

A review of the cases on the topic indicate that most courts analyze the character of the use of the vehicle taken into consideration with the form of the car in determining whether there is liability. [Citations omitted.]

* * *

While we agree with appellee that not all business-owned vehicles are commercial, Hendricks v. American Employers Ins. Co., 176 So. 2d 827 (La. App. 1965) (where the insured had exclusive control of the car), the mere fact that a certain vehicle can be used for personal purposes, or that the vehicle is not designed or used to haul for profit, is not conclusive in determining whether a particular vehicle is "commercial." It is the character of the use that is crucial. [Citations omitted.] For this reason, reliance on several cases holding vehicles of different types to be "commercial autos" within policy exclusions are of little help because the type vehicles are so clearly commercial. E.g. Bryant v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 898 (Miss. 1971) (tandem...