Opinion ID: 77298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Giddens's Dentistry Practice

Text: 30 In the district court and on appeal, Giddens claims he had dual occupations — dentistry and real estate development — and is totally disabled from both. Equitable contends that Giddens had abandoned his dentistry practice years prior to his liver transplant, that as a matter of law dentistry was not his regular occupation at the time of his disability, and that thus the district court erred in denying Equitable summary judgment on his dentistry claim. 31 The Policies define regular occupation as the occupation (or occupations, if more than one) in which you are regularly engaged for gain or profit at the time you become disabled,  not over the course of the insured's life. (Emphasis added.) The ordinary meaning of regular, as used in this context, is [c]ustomary, usual, or normal. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Ed.2000) at p.1471. 5 At the time Giddens became disabled, he had not practiced dentistry in over four years. We thus readily conclude that Giddens was not regularly engaged in dentistry at the time he became disabled, even if he intended to return to dentistry at some point if his health permitted. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Equitable summary judgment on the dentistry issue.