L.Ed. 1028 (1947) (internal quotation omitted). Similarly, the Third Circuit has held, and we agree, that “on ... business” is “open-ended” and “not self-clarifying,” so that it must be construed against ah insurer. McMillan v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am., 922 F.2d 1073, 1075-76 (3d Cir.1990). Thus, we think a reasonable finder of fact could have concluded that Irene Lif-son’s journey home was “on business ... and in the course of ... business” simply because it benefitted the economic interests of her employer. See Hartford Ins. Co. of Southeast v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., 908 F.2d 235, 239 (7th Cir.1990); Conn. Indem. Co. v. Stringfellow, 956 F.Supp. 553, 558-59 (M.D.Pa.1997) (summarizing cases); cf. Allen v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 280 Or. 631, 572 P.2d 617, 619 (1977) (<HOLDING>). There was testimony that the on-call system
holding that an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  insurance policy holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation holding that since security guards act upon the authorization of their employer that authorization can be no broader than that which the employer possesses namely the authority of a private citizen holding that oncall security guard was covered under insurance policy requiring him to be on the business of the employer where among other factors the employer benefitted from the arrangement by reducing the number of guards who had actually to be on duty holding that employer could be subject to contribution claim based on the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity when there was evidence that employer had removed safety guards from printing presses had been warned of the dangers but refused to reinstall the guards disregarding safety notices about the machinery and had instructed employees to engage in dangerous practices