Case Name: METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. MR. PRIDE OF ATLANTA, INC. et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1988-11-30
Citations: 258 Ga. 770
Docket Number: 46056
Parties: METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. MR. PRIDE OF ATLANTA, INC. et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 258
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
46056.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. MR. PRIDE OF ATLANTA, INC. et al.
(374 SE2d 82)

Opinion:
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.