METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Mr. Pride of Atlanta, Inc.

374 S.E.2d 82, 258 Ga. 770, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 514
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 30, 1988
Docket46056
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 374 S.E.2d 82 (METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Mr. Pride of Atlanta, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Mr. Pride of Atlanta, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 82, 258 Ga. 770, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 514 (Ga. 1988).

Opinions

Marshall, Chief Justice.

Mr. and Mrs. Fritz were struck and killed on the premises of a “Mr. Pride” car wash by an automobile which was owned by a third party and which just had been pulled mechanically through the car-wash tunnel and was being driven to the “drying bay” by a Mr. Pride employee. The Fritzes’ children brought a wrongful-death action against the car wash, which, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the liability insurer of the automobile in question, appellant Metropolitan. The policy contained the following exclusion: “We do not cover . . . (e) bodily injury or property damage arising out of automobile business operations.” The term “automobile business” was elsewhere defined in the policy as: “[T]he business or occupation of selling, leasing, repairing, servicing, storing or parking motor vehicles or trailers.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of Metropolitan’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of Mr. Pride’s motion for summary judgment, holding in effect that the exclusion was not applicable. Mr. Pride of Atlanta, Inc. v. Metropolitan Property &c. Ins. Co., 187 Ga. App. 737 (371 SE2d 211) (1988). We granted certiorari.

We reverse for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals, i.e., that the term “servicing” in the exclusion provision reasonably can be construed to include the services which were being performed on the insured automobile, namely: cleaning, waxing, vacuuming, and filling with gasoline.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Long
259 F. Supp. 3d 938 (E.D. Arkansas, 2017)
Grisham v. Allstate Insurance
1999 NMCA 153 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1999)
Fuller's Car Wash, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
698 N.E.2d 237 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1998)
Fuller's Car Wash v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1998
Georgia Mutual Insurance v. Kurtz
426 S.E.2d 248 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
387 S.E.2d 623 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Cincinnati Insurance v. Perimeter Tractor & Trailer Repair, Inc.
384 S.E.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Mr. Pride of Atlanta, Inc. v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance
378 S.E.2d 417 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 S.E.2d 82, 258 Ga. 770, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-property-liability-insurance-company-v-mr-pride-of-ga-1988.