State Farm v. Thigpen

2 Citing cases

  1. State Farm c. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Seeba

    433 S.E.2d 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    ]' [Cit.]" State Farm Fire c. Co. v. Thigpen, 131 Ga. App. 608, 610-611 ( 206 S.E.2d 839) (1974). This definition is consistent with the principle directing construction of the policy against the insurer as well as with the interpretation given to the term "business" in other contexts.

  2. Daniel Corp. v. Reed

    291 Ga. 596 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that plain meaning of ordinance requiring alcohol licensee to "open for business" within nine months of issuance of license, with failure to do so resulting in automatic forfeiture of license, did not reflect any requirement as to the regularity or continuity of business

    This understanding of the phrase is consistent with our decision in Monses v. State, 78 Ga. 110, 111 (1886), in which we held that a statute prohibiting one from keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day might be violated by opening such an establishment “but a moment.” Compare State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Seeba, 209 Ga.App. 328, 329, 433 S.E.2d 414 (1993) (phrase “engage in business,” as used in policy of insurance, implies an element of continuity or habitual practice); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Thigpen, 131 Ga.App. 608, 610–611, 206 S.E.2d 839 (1974) (same). Moreover, our understanding of the “open for business” requirement is consistent with the structure of the automatic forfeiture ordinance as a whole.