Sou. Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan

31 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Peninsular Fire Ins. Co.

    171 Ga. App. 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    Interpreting dictionary definitions to narrowly define each term to include only a principal occupation

    [Cit.]' [Cits.] Dictionaries supply the `plain, ordinary, and popular sense.'" Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 ( 206 S.E.2d 672) (1974). Webster's New International Dictionary (3d ed.) provides these definitions: "Trade" is "the business one practices or the work in which one engages regularly.

  2. Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. T'S Nature Prod

    261 Ga. App. 806 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764(3) ( 206 S.E.2d 672) (1974). As noted above, the risk of an ambiguity in this insurance contract is borne by Southern Trust.

  3. Buirkle v. Hanover Ins. Companies

    832 F. Supp. 469 (D. Mass. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Defining premise facts

    (iii) Multiple Non-investment Activities (part-timebusiness pursuits versus hobbies).E.g., compare Stern v. Insurance Co. of North America, 62 N.J. 582, 303 A.2d 883 (1973) (insured engaged primarily in trucking and warehouse business, serving as elected director of local bank, had attended eight meetings when bank became insolvent; shareholders' claim for breach of duties of fidelity and diligence was within "business pursuits" clause and therefore outside scope of coverage of a personal excess liability policy) with Pacific Indem. Co. v. Linn, 766 F.2d 754, 766 (3rd Cir. 1985) (construing Pennsylvania law; professional service exclusion and business enterprises exclusion found to be ambiguous; "Dr. Linn's writing of the book did not constitute his business, although a profit motive cannot be denied. . . . [Doctor] simply co-authored a diet book. This authorship did not connote a "business" in terms of an ongoing operation with assets owned by Linn.") and with Southern Guaranty Insurance Company v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 206 S.E.2d 672 (1974) (business pursuits did not include spare time racing interest of insured, who was gainfully employed as a mechanic).See also Burdge v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 194 N.J. Super. 320, 323-24, 476 A.2d 880, 883 (1984) (court draws distinction between business pursuits and constitutionally protected political activity, concluding that campaign activities of an office seeker, even if an incumbent, do not constitute business pursuits).

  4. Megel v. Donaldson

    288 Ga. App. 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Noting that a party alleging fraudulent inducement has โ€œtwo options: affirm the contract and sue for damages from the fraud or breach; or promptly rescind the contract and sue in tort for fraudโ€

    When construing contracts, words generally bear their usual and common signification, OCGA ยง 13-2-2 (2), and dictionaries may supply the plain and ordinary sense of a word. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 (2) ( 206 SE2d 672) (1974). Further, contract disputes are particularly well suited for adjudication by summary judgment because construction of contracts is ordinarily a matter of law for the court.

  5. Price v. Ernst & Young, LLP

    274 Ga. App. 172 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that โ€œequitable estoppel applies when the signatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory.โ€

    Unambiguous terms are taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense as supplied by dictionaries. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 ( 206 SE2d 672) (1974). equitable estoppel applies when the signatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the written agreement in asserting its claims against the nonsignatory.

  6. Cunningham v. Middle Ga. Mut. Ins. Co.

    268 Ga. App. 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 13 times

    Although the mechanic potentially could have earned prize money, he was employed full time elsewhere, and we thus found that the underlying interest did not stem from a business pursuit. 131 Ga. App. 761, 763-764 (2) ( 206 SE2d 672) (1974). In Brown v. Peninsular Fire Ins. Co., a real estate broker purchased property for development purposes and hired a contracting company to grade the property.

  7. Barrow Cty. Airport Auth. v. Romanair

    254 Ga. App. 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    When interpreting contracts, dictionaries may supply the plain and ordinary sense of words. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 (2) ( 206 S.E.2d 672) (1974). Moreover, if the trial court's interpretation of the lease is followed, the rent could never be adjusted.

  8. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Erwin

    240 Ga. App. 816 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 6 times
    In Nationwide, the plaintiffs sought recovery for libel, slander, and invasion of privacy following the termination of a business relationship between the plaintiff and Nationwide's insured. Nationwide provided the insured with homeowner's coverage which specifically defined personal injury to include defamation, but the policy excluded injuries "arising out of business pursuits of an insured."

    Nor did the court err in granting summary judgment to Erwin. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 (3) ( 206 S.E.2d 672) (1974) (citations and punctuation omitted).Judgment affirmed.

  9. Larson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.

    238 Ga. App. 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    In Larson, the insured's home business activity happened to be the same as his principal vocation as an electrical engineer.

    The cases cited by appellants do not require a different result. In Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 763-764 (2) ( 206 S.E.2d 672) (1974), this Court concluded that a "business pursuits" exclusion in a homeowner's policy did not apply to an incident arising from a mechanic's part-time auto racing interest. Although the mechanic potentially could have earned prize money from his auto racing hobby, he was employed full-time elsewhere.

  10. McDuffie v. Argroves

    497 S.E.2d 5 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times

    In construing contracts, words must be given their usual and common signification (OCGA ยง 13-2-2; Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cherokee Ins. Co., 192 Ga. App. 757, 759 ( 386 S.E.2d 524)), and dictionaries may supply the plain and ordinary sense of a word. Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga. App. 761, 764 ( 206 S.E.2d 672). We find that the usual signification of "fit" in these circumstances means to be appropriate or suitable or answering the requirements.