First Financial Ins. Co. v. American Sandblasting Co., A96A1581
Decision Date | 16 October 1996 |
Docket Number | No. A96A1581,A96A1581 |
Citation | 223 Ga.App. 232,477 S.E.2d 390 |
Parties | , 96 FCDR 3722 FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN SANDBLASTING COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Crim & Bassler, Terence D. Williams, Atlanta, Michael O. Sheridan, for appellant.
Kim G. Meyer, Atlanta, for appellee.
Defendant First Financial Insurance Company issued a general liability policy to plaintiff American Sandblasting Company. The policy provided coverage for the painting of structures three stories or less in height. Plaintiff was painting a bridge less than three stories tall when paint overspray damaged numerous vehicles on a car dealer's lot. Within 30 days after plaintiff filed a claim, defendant denied coverage. Plaintiff requested reconsideration and notified defendant that it intended to seek bad faith damages if defendant continued to deny the claim. Defendant reiterated its denial. More than 60 days later, plaintiff filed suit for the overspray damages it paid the car dealer. It also sought bad faith damages and attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 33-4-6. Subsequently, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff regarding defendant's liability under the policy, but reserved the issue of bad faith damages and attorney fees for trial. Following a bench trial, plaintiff was awarded these damages.
1. Defendant contends plaintiff's claim was not covered under the policy due to an exclusion clause, and thus the trial court erred in granting plaintiff partial summary judgment. We disagree.
It is well settled that insurance policies, even when ambiguous, are to be construed by the court, and no jury question is presented unless an ambiguity remains after application of the applicable rules of contract construction. Alley v. Great American Ins. Co., 160 Ga.App. 597, 599, 287 S.E.2d 613 (1981). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Snitzer, 183 Ga.App. 395, 397(1), 358 S.E.2d 925 (1987).
Here, the exclusion clause provides that: "This insurance does not apply to ... 'property damage,' ... arising out of pile driving, caisson, coffer dam, subway, sewer, tunnel, bridge, dam, subaqueous or dredging construction or operations." Defendant contends that painting a bridge constitutes "bridge operations," and thus that the exclusion clause is applicable. Specifically, defendant argues that the term "operations," which is not defined in the policy, means the "doing or performing of a practical work or of something involving the practical application of principles or processes...." See Webster's Third New Intl. Dictionary at 1581(1b) (1981). According to defendant, the process at issue here is painting, and the act of painting constitutes the application of that process, in this case, to a bridge. While such an interpretation is plausible, it is clear that the term "operations," as used in the clause at issue, is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. As plaintiff argues, "operation" also is defined as "the quality or state of being functional or operative----" or "the operating of...." See Webster's at 1581(2b), (10). Consequently, "bridge operations" could reasonably refer to the functioning of or operating of a bridge, such as a drawbridge or toll bridge. Under such an interpretation, the exclusion clause would not apply.
"[I]f an insurance contract is capable of being construed two ways, it will be construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured." (Citation omitted.) Claussen v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 259 Ga. 333, 334-335(1), 380 S.E.2d 686 (1989). Applying this rule of construction, as well as those mentioned above, we conclude that the exclusion clause is not applicable. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion.
2. We also reject defendant's contention that the trial court erred in awarding plaintiff bad faith damages and attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 33-4-6. The question of bad faith is for the trier of fact, Snitzer, 183 Ga.App. at 397(2), 358 S.E.2d 925, and a "judgment (for bad faith penalties and attorney fees) should be affirmed if there is any evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Ga.
...are to be construed as reasonably understood by an insured.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) First Financial Ins. Co. v. American Sandblasting Co., 223 Ga. App. 232 (1), 477 S.E.2d 390 (1996). "The policy should be read as a layman would read it and not as it might be analyzed by an insur......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Neisler
...company, through correspondence, had been put on notice of the difficulty in construing policy); First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Am. Sandblasting Co., 223 Ga.App. 232, 233(2), 477 S.E.2d 390 (1996) (physical precedent only as to Div. 1) (holding that trial court properly awarded bad-faith damages to......
-
Mock v. Cent. Mut. Ins. Co.
...thus is not entitled to summary judgment on these claims. Dkt. No. 39, p. 25 (quoting First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Am. Sandblasting Co. , 223 Ga.App. 232, 477 S.E.2d 390, 392 (1996) ). Moreover, Plaintiff argues, there is a factual issue as to whether Defendant's quoting a “non-existent policy pr......
-
AMERICAN ASS'N OF CAB COS. v. Olukoya
...of law that there was a reasonable defense which vindicates the good faith of the insurer. First Financial Ins. Co. v. American Sandblasting Co., 223 Ga.App. 232, 233(2), 477 S.E.2d 390 (1996). In this case, there was evidence to support the judgment. AACCI failed to follow insurance indust......
-
Insurance - Ralph F. Simpson
...486 S.E.2d at 72-73. 170. Id. at 204,486 S.E.2d at 75 (quoting Gleans Falls, 203 Ga. App. at 511, 417 S.E.2d at 200). 171. Id. 172. 223 Ga. App. 232, 477 S.E.2d 390 (1996). 173. Id. at 233, 477 S.E.2d at 392 (quoting Claussen v. Aetna Cas. Co., 259 Ga. 333, 334-35, 380 S.E.2d 686, 688 (1989......
-
American Empire Surplus Lines v. Hathaway Dev. Co.: an Important Occurrence in Georgia Insurance Law
...Inc. v. Sentry Select Ins. Co., 293 Ga. App. 643, 647, 667 S.E.2d 888, 892 (2008); First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Am. Sandblasting Co., 223 Ga. App. 232, 233, 477 S.E.2d 390, 392 (1996). [34] Loftin, 106 Ga. App. at 294, 127 S.E.2d at 58; see also Rentrite, Inc., 293 Ga. App. at 647, 667 S.E.2d at ......