Can an insurance policy exclude a business from coverage?

In response to this argument the respondent cites the more recent Saskatchewan decision of Kyle J. of this Court in the case of Munro v. Shackleton (1993), 1993 CanLII 8873 (SK QB), 115 Sask. R. 104. In that case the plaintiff insured farm buildings and contents. A garage destroyed in a fire contained equipment previously used by one of the plaintiffs in a building and carpentry business. The policy contained an exclusionary clause which eliminated coverage on buildings and contents used for business purposes. Coverage was accordingly denied. A previous insurance policy which was referred to as a "commercial policy" would have covered the loss. When the new coverage was being arranged the agent and the insured discussed the fact that there was no current business activity on the property. Kyle J. found as a fact that the plaintiffs were literate adults capable of reading a contract, that the exclusion was in clear and simple language and that there was no evidence that the agent was advised of any business activities carried on on the premises. The decision in this regard was as follows [at para. 9]: I am not prepared to hold that insured persons are under no obligation to read the contracts which they make. There was a time when insurance policies were so poorly drawn that no one could reasonably be expected to understand them without special training. Efforts made by insurance companies to relieve this problem have resulted in documents such as those filed in evidence in this case. It is not appropriate now to place the entire burden upon the insurance agent to meet the insurance needs of an applicant unless the facts demonstrate a complete reliance. . . .