The denial of coverage under the homeowners is partly justified, but not for the reason given. Under the homeowners policy, liability “arising out of or in connection with a business engaged in by an insured is excluded. The insured was not engaged in business activities, however, at the time of the occurrence. The link between attending the seminar and staying at the hotel is tenuous. It would be akin to driving to work, being involved in an accident, and then holding that the accident arose from a business activity. The denial of coverage is properly found in the exclusion for “property damage” to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured. The exclusion does not apply to “property damage” caused by fire, smoke or explosion”—what was once referred to as the fire legal liability” provision. Had the insured tipped over an ash tray, for example, causing a fire, the resulting damage would have been covered.

But, since the loss did not arise out of a business activity, or out of an act or omission in connection with premises other than an “insured location,”  $500 is available under the liability additional coverages for this loss.

There is also some coverage under the CGL. The CGL excludes property damage coverage for “property damage to property you own, rent, or occupy,” “you” being the named insured—the corporation. The vice-president was carrying out his duties on behalf of the corporation by attending the seminar, but he is not “you,” so his negligence in causing the loss to the real property—the room itself and any surrounding areas—is covered, assuming the claim is against the corporation. The corporation did not rent the room, so the “property you rent” exclusion does not apply. If the claim is against the vice-president, though, there is no coverage.

There is no coverage for the hotel room furniture, since it is “personal property in the care, custody or control of the insured,” the vice-president qualifying as “the insured.”