Gaynor v. Williams
Decision Date | 06 February 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-427,78-427 |
Citation | 366 So.2d 1243 |
Parties | Milton GAYNOR d/b/a North Miami Villas, Appellant, v. Fred C. WILLIAMS, etc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Spence, Payne & Masington, Daniels & Hicks, and Mark Hicks, Miami, for appellant.
Pyszka, Kessler & Adams, Fort Lauderdale, Rentz, McClellan & Haggard and L. Edward McClellan, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
The summary judgment entered below in favor of the carrier, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, on the issue of coverage is therefore affirmed.
Gaynor's ownership of the complex clearly constituted a "continuous and comprehensive . . . activity for financial gain . . .," and thus fell within the accepted definition of a "business pursuit." 2 O'Conner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of North America, 352 So.2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 843 (Fla.1976).
Furthermore, it does not matter that the ownership of the apartment house was not Gaynor's only or main occupation. See Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 P.2d 1293 (Okl.1974); Stern v. Ins. Co. of North America, 62 N.J. 582, 303 A.2d 883 (1973). The only case cited by the appellant for the contrary proposition, Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 131 Ga.App. 761, 206 S.E.2d 672 (1974), is not persuasive and is, in any case, meaningfully distinguishable. The policy involved there defined "business" as a "trade, profession or occupation, including farming . . ." The policy involved in this case, however, states only that the term " 'business' Includes trade, profession or occupation." Since the word "includes" is a term of expansion, 3 Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Blanshard, 77 Fla. 855, 82 So. 300 (1919); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 24 Ill.App.3d 718, 321 N.E.2d 293, 302 (1974), the definition here must be read to mean that business includes, but Is not limited to the "trade, profession or occupation" of the insured. Both the "common understanding of the term . . . ," Braley v. American Home Assurance Co., 354 So.2d 904, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1978), and the decided cases show that Gaynor's "business pursuits" included the activity involved here.
Affirmed.
1 The underlying suit against Gaynor was a wrongful death action brought by the parents of a child who was electrocuted on a negligently maintained fence on the premises.
2 Similarly, the building itself was "business property" within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Markogiannakis, s. 1-87-2758
...encompass pursuits other than what are normally understood to be trades, professions, or occupations. For example, in Gaynor v. Williams (Fla.App.1979), 366 So.2d 1243, the court was asked to decide whether a homeowner's policy with the same definition of business excluded coverage for an a......
-
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Sparks, No. W2006-01036-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 12/7/2007)
...part-time or supplemental income-producing activities that are carried on continuously or regularly. See, e.g.,Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So.2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979);Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Markogiannakis, 188 Ill.App.3d 643, 655, 544 N.E.2d 1082, 1090 (1989); State Auto. Mut. ......
-
Pacific Indem. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 15484
...term of expansion, "business includes, but is not limited to, the 'trade, profession or occupation' of the insured." Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So.2d 1243, 1244 (Fla.App.1979). Consequently, we find the approach adopted by the New York courts and the majority jurisdictions to be accurate and t......
-
Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Garfinkel
...pursuits exclusion applied even though insureds did not board horses as their sole means of livelihood); Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So.2d 1243, 1243–44 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (insured was a banker, but injury arose out of his ownership of an apartment complex); Mid–American Fire & Cas. Co. v. ......