business activities of an insured person,’ ” and defined “ ‘Business’ as ‘any full or part-time activity of any kind engaged in for economic gain.’ ” Id. at *5 (emphasis in original). Here, by contrast, the commercial general liability policy at issue identifies Panajon as an insured “with respect to the conduct of a business of which [he is] the sole owner.” Burlington Opp’n to PSC Stay Motion Ex. J. Aside from relying on general principles of corporate law, Burlington cites no Hawai’i cases addressing the scope of insurance coverage for a corporation that is solely-owned by an individual named insured. Moreover, as PSC argues, this issue is not as straight-forward as Burlington contends. PSC Stay Reply at 6-8. Compare Shelby Ins. Co. v. Ford, 265 Ga. 232, 454 S.E.2d 464 (1995) (<HOLDING>), with id. at 466 (Sears, J., dissenting)
holding that a policy providing coverage to an appellant as an individual only with respect to the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner  did not extend to the appellants corporation a day care center holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments holding that an ownedproperty exclusion did not apply with respect to property that the insured bought only after the policy periods for which the insured sought coverage holding that the fifth amendment privileges of an individual do not extend to the business records of his sole proprietorship