This court has held on numerous occasions that Webster's New International Dictionary may be used to supply the plain, ordinary and popular sense meanings of words with regard to the construction of insurance policies. Badger Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 116 Ga. App. 262 ( 157 S.E.2d 58) (1967); Georgia Farm c. Ins. Co. v. Washington, 145 Ga. App. 216 ( 243 S.E.2d 639) (1978). Webster's New International Dictionary defines rent as follows: "The return made by the tenant or occupant of land ... to the owner for the use thereof ... commonly, a certain pecuniary sum agreed upon between a tenant and his landlord, and paid at fixed intervals by the tenant to the landlord, for the use of land or its appendages ..."
None of these would include the spare time racing interest of the insured, who was gainfully employed as a full-time mechanic, that being his trade, profession or occupation. Accordingly, the incident here which is the basis of the neighboring youngster's lawsuit is not pursuant to the insured's "business" and did not fall within the "business pursuits" exclusion. Compare Badger Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 116 Ga. App. 262 ( 157 S.E.2d 58). 3. "Where an insurance company seeks to invoke an exclusion contained in its policy, it has the burden of showing that the facts came within the exclusion. [Cit.]"
See Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. Greer, 437 P.2d 243 (Okla. 1968) (stipulation limiting insurer's liability for loss of property fully within excepted impermissible uses may be impliedly waived); De Noyelles v. Delaware Ins. Co., 78 Misc. 649, 138 N.Y.S. 855 (1912) (insured's breach of warranty of use of premises for dwelling purposes is waived where insurer issued policy and accepted premium with knowledge that the building was occupied by a drug store and a manicuring business). But see Badger Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hancock 116 Ga. App. 262, 157 S.E.2d 58 (1967) (insured could not recover for fire loss of garage, used for commercial purposes within homeowner's policy exclusion provision on the theory of estoppel where policy was first issued and renewed prior to prohibited use, separate premium was not charged for inclusion of garage and such additional coverage existed only under provision that garage was not used for commercial purposes). Moreover, application of the doctrine of implied waiver in the case under discussion is particularly appropriate because all of the HO-48 endorsements issued to plaintiffs described the covered appurtenant structure as a "garage building used for storage and upholstery work.
None of these would include the spare time racing interest of the insured, who was gainfully employed as a full-time mechanic, that being his trade, profession or occupation. Accordingly, the incident here which is the basis of the neighboring youngster's lawsuit is not pursuant to the insured's `business' and did not fall within the `business pursuits' exclusion. Compare Badger Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 116 Ga. App. 262, 157 S.E.2d 58. `Where an insurance company seeks to invoke an exclusion contained in its policy, it has the burden of showing that the facts came within the exclusion. [Cit.]' Darby v. Interstate, etc., Ins. Co., 107 Ga. App. 409, 130 S.E.2d 360.