Hollingsworth

Introduction

“[T]he logic of words should yield to the logic of realities.” (Di Santo v. Pennsylvania (1927) 273 U.S. 34, 43 [ 71 L.Ed. 524, 529 , 47 S.Ct. 267 ] (Brandeis, J., dis.), overruled on other grounds in California v. Thompson (1941) 313 U.S. 109, 116 [ 85 L.Ed. 1219, 1223 , 61 S.Ct. 930 ].) In this case, we must determine whether ear piercing constituted a “professional service,” which defendant Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial) specifically excluded from coverage in an insurance policy held by plaintiff Julia Hollingsworth (Hollingsworth). On summary judgment, the trial court found the term unambiguous and ruled that Commercial had no duty to defend or to indemnify Hollingsworth. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Statement

At all relevant times, Hollingsworth was the sole proprietor of Merle Norman Cosmetics-Eastland, a cosmetics store, operating under a merchants insurance policy originally issued by Commercial sometime prior to March 1984. In pertinent part, the policy provided coverage for bodily injury “caused by an occurrence insured by this policy . . . .” However, it also specified several types of losses excluded from its coverage:…