MILTON GAYNOR D/B/A NORTH MIAMI VILLAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED C. WILLIAMS, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Milton Gaynor, who owned an apartment complex called North Miami Villas, sought coverage under his umbrella personal liability policy for an accident at the complex. The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurance carrier, holding that the policy's exclusion for "business pursuits" clearly applied to Gaynor's ownership and operation of the apartment complex, regardless of whether it was his primary occupation.
The court held that Gaynor's ownership of the apartment complex clearly constituted a "business pursuit" within the policy's exclusion, and therefore the insurance carrier was not required to provide coverage. The court determined that it does not matter whether business ownership is the insured's only or main occupation; the continuous and comprehensive activity undertaken for financial gain meets the definition of a business pursuit.
[1] An umbrella personal liability policy may exclude coverage for accidents arising out of the operation of an apartment house if the insured's ownership constitutes a "busi…
[2] Ownership of an apartment complex, even if not the insured's primary occupation, can be considered a "business pursuit" for the purpose of insurance policy exclusions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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."”
Establishes the court's test for what constitutes a business pursuit under the policy exclusion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton Gaynor is primarily a banker and insurance agent who also individually owns the North Miami Villas apartment complex, which he operates through…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Milton Gaynor is primarily a banker and an insurance man. He also individually owns among other properties, an apartment complex called the North Miami Villas, which he runs through a general manager, and from which he derives all the profits. We agree with the trial judge that, as a matter of law, Gaynor is not covered by his umbrella personal liability policy for an accident arising out of the operation of the apartment house,1 because of an exclusion, common in such policies, which states that it does not apply
“. . . to any business pursuits or business property . . . of an insured . . . ”
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.
. 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.
. Similarly, the building itself was “business property” within the meaning of the exclusion. Cf. Dewey v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 16 Ohio Misc. 297, 242 N.E. 2d 692 (C. P. Cuyahoga Co. 1968).
. The appellant argues that “includes” should be viewed as a word of limitation so that the Lumbermens’ policy provision would be interpreted as meaning that “ ‘business’ comprises trade, profession, or occupation.” Under this view, however, the phrase would mean precisely the same with or without the word “includes.” The adoption of this argument would therefore run directly contrary to the rule that, if possible, each word of a contract should be ascribed some effect and meaning. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. City of Miami, 76 Fla. 277, 79 So. 682 (1918); Royal American Realty, Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Trust Co., 215 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Asis Saha and Barbara A. Saha v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 427 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…be engaged in a business pursuit. Under “definitions” in the policy we find: 2. business includes trade, profession or occupation. Appellant wants us to limit the definition to those terms, but we agree with our sister court in Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) which construed an identical policy definition thusly: Since the word “includes” is a term of expansion ... the definition here must be read to mean that business includes, but is not limited to the “trade profession or occupatio…
-
Am. Motorist Ins. Co. v. Steffens, 429 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…f the property and the profits anticipated from the sale of the surrounding lots. Appellant cites and relies heavily upon the cases of O’Conner v. Safeco Insurance Co. of North America, 352 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Gaynor v. Williams, [*337] 366 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tri-State Mutual Insurance Co., 276 N.W. 2d 264 (S.D.1979), as authority for its position that the business pursuit exclusion is applicable to any injury for which the insured initiat…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Friend, 478 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…enance of the clay road for the satisfaction of their prospects and purchasers indicated a continuous and comprehensive, if somewhat casual, activity for financial gain. See Annot. 48 A.L.R.3d 1096, 1101 (1973). Id. at 1246. In Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), Gaynor was a banker and an insurance man. He also owned an apartment complex from which he derived all profits. Gaynor sought coverage from his umbrella personal liability policy for an accident arising out of the operation of th…
Authorities Cited
- Royal Am. Realty, Inc. v. Bank OF Palm Beach & Tr. Co., 215 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Blanshard, 77 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1919)
- The Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. The City of Miami, 76 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1918)
- Braley v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 354 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Rosalina Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- O'Conner v. Safeco INS. Co. OF N. Am., 352 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Eduardo and Hilda Perez v. Leroy's Crane Serv., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Donnie M. Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)