In Mr. Pride, an employee of a car wash negligently drove a customer's car into the drying bay of a car wash and struck and killed two patrons. The owner of the car was insured by Metropolitan, which denied coverage based on an automobile business exclusion similar to the one at bar. Regardless of the clear meaning of the court's holding, the plaintiffs contend that Mr. Pride supports their position and stands for the proposition that the automobile business exclusion does not apply to a car wash unless the car wash also dispenses gasoline. In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia's statement and its reliance on the dissenting opinion of the appellate court, we find the plaintiffs' interpretation of Mr. Pride without merit. Nothing in Mr. Pride suggests that, in making its decision, the court relied on the fact that the car wash also dispensed gasoline.
Automobile maintenance includes keeping the vehicle clean.
Thus, we do not agree with the plaintiffs that the Liberty Mutual's automobile business exclusion does not apply in the case at bar simply because Fuller's did not also dispense gasoline. In Kurtz, the court held that an automobile exclusion provision did not apply to a car wash business because the car wash did not also dispense gasoline. Because the common meanings of these terms differ, the holding in Kurtz does not apply to the case at bar. Thus, the plaintiffs' argument fails. Further, the plaintiffs' argument that Liberty Mutual's automobile business exclusion is ambiguous in the car wash context is without merit.