JBC said that the language of the exclusion is ambiguous such that an average purchaser of insurance could fairly conclude that the firearms exclusion applies only if the insured itself uses a firearm in connection with its business. The court disagreed. The court said that the policy simply states that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury that arises out of, relates to, and is based upon or attributable to the use of a firearm, period. The language is unambiguous and it unequivocally excludes coverage from bodily injury arising from the use of a firearm. To interpret the exclusion to apply only to the insured, the court held, would be contrary to the plain language of the policy.

 The ruling of the trial court was affirmed.

 Editor's Note: This decision required the appeals court to consider the applicability of a firearms exclusion. Even though the insured claimed the exclusionary language was ambiguous in that it was not clear as to whether the exclusion's applicability required the use of a firearm by the insured itself, the court found no ambiguity in the exclusion's language. The bodily injuries suffered by the claimant clearly arose and were attributable to the use of a firearm and that was all that was required by the exclusion.