I’ll keep this brief.  The decision is more just interesting than one with some lesson or discussion of an important issue.

Robert Clark owned 600 acres of land in Mississippi.  He had no cows – that was until November 6, 2018 when he purchased ten black heifers.  Clearly the cows knew they were dealing with a rookie as they escaped on their very first night.  Can you imagine their conversation when they got to the farm and looked at the set-up to keep them penned-in.  “Ladies, don’t unpack.  We’re out of her at 10.”

Tragically, that night Betty Haggard collided with one or more of the heifers on a Mississippi highway.  She sued Clark.  He sought coverage under a homeowner’s policy – but it contained an exclusion for bodily injury arising out of a business or farming engaged in by an insured.  The policy defined “farming” as “the operation of an agricultural or aquacultural enterprise or operation of a road-side stand.” 

The insurer denied coverage based on the farming exclusion, a dispute arose and coverage litigation ensued.  Since I’m keeping this brief I’ll just say that the trial court found for the insurer.  The Mississippi appeals court, in Clark v. Alfa Ins. Co., No. 2022-CA-1251-COA (Miss. Ct. App. July 23, 2024 -- following a lengthy discussing of what farming activities Clark did on his land, what he planned to do with the cows and how he dealt with income and expenses on his tax returns -- affirmed.

The court stated: “It is not unreasonable that purchasing, raising, feeding, breeding, selling, and caring for cattle is an ‘agricultural enterprise even when no profit is involved. Moreover, the Appellants make much of the intended use of the cattle (whether for profit or hobby); however, their intended use would only matter when applying a business exclusion. The farming exclusion applies to all agricultural enterprises, regardless of whether they are for a business or not. As the trial court stated, ‘[e]very enterprise has to have a beginning.’ Even though in its ‘infancy,’ Clark started a cattle raising ‘enterprise’ when he bought the ten heifers, regardless of whether they generated a profit; therefore, the farming exclusion applies.”

Again, the decision is probably not going to affect too many people handling claims – although the aspect of the opinion addressing policy language interpretation may have some legs.  And I’m pretty sure I won’t see ten law firm case alerts on the decision.  But I found the issues in Clark v. Alfa Ins. Co. interesting and unique so I included it here.