oil wells), was engaged in part of Sun Oil’s business. Likewise, the court held that Houston, in “fishing out” tools stuck in the same well, was engaged in activities “so closely related to the actual drilling of the well as to become a component part of it.” 40 So.2d at 765. The court further noted that the work “is so closely related to its [Sun Oil’s] business that it can be said to be a part of its operation in the production of oil.” Id. This court also affirmed, reasoning that “[t]he drilling of wells, the reworking if necessary, and the ‘fishing out’ of well tools and implements which become stuck in the course of drilling the well are all interrelated and component parts, though different phases, of oil production. In other words, b 3d Cir.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 569 (1979) (<HOLDING>). I ¡{Trend toward Narrow Construction of
holdingextra expense coverage for the construction of a new building when the insured previously rented the building contravened the parties intent holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business holding that rental value was properly included as part of damages on action for breach of building contract where contractor failed to complete building within contracted time