*1 12, Decided November denied December Barfield, Ronald for Chambers, Chambers, Sr., Cham- D. John John W.
Timothy W. bers, Jr., appellee. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE
70754. GEORGIA INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. COMPANY v. JOINER Beasley, undisputed.
The facts in this case are On June 1982 a com- bailment, bine, damaged was owned Joiner but held Mitchell against action negligence fire on Mitchell’s farm. Joiner filed a Mitchell, turn, made a Mitchell to recover to the combine. insurer, Insurance upon demand Farm Bureau Mutual Georgia pursuant to his to furnish a defense to the action as- policy. рetitioned declaratory judgment farmowner’s Insurer policy issue not afford for bailed serting that at does is, combine, duty under no property, and that it is therefore 25, 1985, trial, a bench the court con- February to defend. On after policy to defend Mitchell obligated cluded that insurer is appeals. from Joiner’s claim. Insurer Policy insuring
This is а the farmowner Broad Form Farmowners described against specified perils particularly losses from certain (Section (Sec- I) personal liability against and interests II). “comprehensive” The latter is denominated but does carve out some exclusions. beginning
The General Conditions set out at the apply through- contains definitions which to some of the terms used appear incorporates out the additional definitions policy. are of different near end of the The additiоnal definitions repeated verbatim. except terms that the definition of “occurrence” dwelling (“including” Under Section covers the farm additions, construction, еquipment, alteration re- and materials for private pair), appurtenant private (“including” structures named purposes used for named including]” structures and “not struсtures others), while on the personal property or rented to unscheduled (but and, amount, premises to a limited while personal prop- “farm things it “does not include” a number of such as farm”), living erty usual and incidental penses by peril, due to loss and one shed. are listed and twenty types peril. given cer-
“meaning” It is described each “only,” “except,” “excluding,” “unless,” things and, the use of tain type peril, Only things. excluding than,” “other or and lightning,” in the addi- here. But no elucidation further incorpo- portion II, Sectiоn which tional definitions rated into property damage *2 “includes I, is defined. It “fire hazard” Section the term any farm, and to to (1) property furnishings out of if arises therein such house fire, (3) (2) smudges explosion, unusual caused sudden or smoke or peril cooking any heating faulty Thus the or unit.” amplified. simply “fire” is listed as policy,
Throughout what the Definitions thе two being instances, however, in- In two “means” is set out. defined “means,” is used. The first is the word “includes” stead of the word “farming,” “ ‘farming’ opera- Conditions; includes the in the General principally in- for the sale of the of roadside stands maintained products.” hazard,” in is “fire the additional sured’s farm definitions earlier. The second “ quoted portion; includes” what has been ‘fire hazard’ ordinary usage, its Thus we construe the word Bear Ranches v. Ga. Farm this court in which &c. Ins. referred to 378) (1983): (312 App. 307, The term 169 Ga. 309 SE2d ordinarily enlargement, States v. “is a term of not United (6) (9th 1957), signify Gertz, 662, some- 249 F2d 666 Cir. used to beyond thing comprehended general language else is the 20A, Phrases, In- [Cit.] the collated Vol. Words and term. See cаses p. seq.” wording clude, 144 The context and made it et “including” clear that the term or “includes” is used as a term of en- largement. interpreting The entire contract must be considered when Davis, Ins. Co. v. 828 it. Guarantee Trust Life 76) (1979), part, part, SE2d 336) (1979). aff’d rev’d Ga. giving “including”
The court Bear reasoned that the word ordinary meaning bring However, its an absurd result. would аbout appears opposite If that the be the result here. it is a term of would only peril limitation, the fire hazard losses insured (such premises away “fire” would be tо insured from the farm temporarily residing) and, if residence which the farmer be furnishings causes, in those attributable to certain to the house premises. construing in-
The test in “is not what the an insurance person mean, surer position reasonable intended its words to but what a to mean. The the insured would understand them layman might ana- should be read аs a would read it and not as it be lyzed attorney.” expert Nationwide Mut. Fire an insurance or an If Co. v. meaning rather than ordinary the term were its Bear, loss from fire to it wоuld cover attributed peril to and interests covered property as a hazard or I; peril designated or description set out Section hazard “fire,” awаy from the farm. property damage include it would Big Bear; lead to the result feared
This construction would not specifically expressly it would not restore comprehensive per- (j) cluded. Subsection excludes from farmer’s property sonal One is liability coverage types property damage. damage prоperty. property to his own The second damage controlling. property occupying, using, of others which he is or As to liability arising any peril his from property, personal own excluded. property (given As to the inclusive of the word “in- others’ cludes”), only against; of fire is insured all of enu- say, if the or occupying are not. That is tо insured is merated using it is controlling or another’s due to example, damaged by explosion falling objects collapse, loss not would be covered. construction allows the term
Such a of the word “includes” also *3 meaning to have the when in connection with hazard” same used II. in Section when in Section This fire I as it does used obeys principle court must avоid a construction that “[t]his Big does not all and effect. give policy meaning of a [Cit.]” Bear, supra at 310. respect great and consideration
With deferencе earlier this policy provisions subject, here we overrule the hold- court ing Big Bear, agree in affirm the trial supra, arrived at and with and court in this case. J., J., Banke, McMurray, Carley, C. P. Judgment affirmed. J.,
Sognier, Benham, JJ., Birdsong, and P. concurs Pope, concur. in only. Deen, J., the judgment P. dissents.
Deen, Presiding dissenting. Judge, my opinion, Big
In there to overrule is no real or rational reason Bеar v. Ga. Ranches Farm &c.
378) (1983), in facts to war- sufficiently as the two cases differ in rant in Bear a result the instant case different from that Ranches. first, meanings. “includes”
The word has twо distinct usual, preceding meaning something more is added to the lan- guage, adding term or either defining/specifying therein; ordinarily a it necessarily implied is thus something not hand, of is so in the instant case. On enlargement, and used exclusions, coverages of prior separate listing the context of items and only certain limit or restrict Beаr Ranches. appropriate as was thus be a term of Part, therein. Phrases, and cases cited & 1985 Pocket 20A Words See reasona- matter, interpretation, many instances In this so expressed, perceptively pointedly key. is the As bleness that overpower ring of rhetoric to permit be taken not to “care shоuld reason.”1 the rule of court, the most addressing when
According to Lord you point out use “is the one for an advocate to useful tool . . . and phrase caрable of more than that the word or just to a and desirable to take one that leads judge then to invite the they “should not be a judges further admonishes result.” He semantiсs, the man in should be powerhouse mechanic [but] judice options sub as to defini- of it.”2 We have the case charge tions, leading justice to reason and is attаined pathway and the and the instant case. To overrule the latter both Bear Ranches unwise, resources of reason would be as it would limit the court’s casе solution while flexibility seeking equitable just and tools of an many disputes cases which we correct errors we decide province is to correct errors of law “Reviewing law. courts whose sole State, . . .” Hunt v. should not enter the forum of facts.
374, 377 SE respectfully must dissent. Decided November denied December Forbes, Jr., Coolidge,
Morton G. Hermann W. Jones,
Bobby Cheney, appellees. T. A. Glen A. THE
70838. CHASTAIN v. STATE. *4 Benham, Appellant Superior seeks the reversal of his conviction conversion, County Court of by taking, Cobb for theft theft follow, public violation of oath of offiсe. For reasons which we reverse. Appellant sup- 1. contends that the evidence was insufficient port a of guilty charged. disagree. verdict on the three counts We Abortion,” Ronald K. L. “The Problem of Penalties Clouds Issue of The Na 1985). (July tional Law Journal Thompson County Hampshire, Baron Alfred “The Whitchurch Freedom,” (1955). Price A.B.A. Journal 1011