GEORGE L. SMITH WORLD CONGRESS v. Soft Comdex
Decision Date | 19 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. A01A0808.,A01A0808. |
Parties | GEORGE L. SMITH II GEORGIA WORLD CONGRESS CENTER AUTHORITY v. SOFT COMDEX, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Atty. Gen., Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones & Sweeney, Timothy J. Sweeney, Atlanta, for appellant.
Wilson, Strickland & Benson, Mary M. Brockington, Holland & Knight, Fred R. Slotkin, Jr., Mabry & McClelland, Edwin L. Hamilton, John G. Godsey, Atlanta, for appellee.
The George L. Smith II Georgia World Congress Center Authority ("Authority") appeals from the grant of summary judgment to Soft Comdex, Inc., formerly known as Interface Group, Inc. ("Comdex"), on its indemnification cross-claim in a personal injury action. The plaintiff in the underlying case, Ernest Acord, was injured when he walked through a parking lot on his way to a Comdex convention in the Georgia World Congress Center ("Center") and was hit on the head by a mechanical "parking arm." Acord sued both the Authority and Comdex for his injuries. The Authority answered and filed a cross-claim for indemnification against Comdex. Comdex settled with Acord before trial, and a jury subsequently returned a defense verdict for the Authority. When Acord challenged the verdict, however, the Authority settled with Acord for $25,000.
The Authority's cross-claim seeks indemnification from Comdex for settlement costs, litigation expenses, and attorney fees. Comdex filed a motion for summary judgment on the cross-claim, arguing that it was not liable for indemnification under the parties' licensing contract because Acord's injuries occurred in a Georgia Dome parking lot, not on the licensed premises, and occurred before Acord was admitted to the Center. The Authority filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to Comdex on the indemnification cross-claim. Because we find that the application of the parties' contract to the undisputed facts demonstrated that Comdex was not liable for indemnification as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court's order.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The construction of a contract is peculiarly well suited for disposition by summary judgment because, in the absence of an ambiguity in terms, it is a question of law for the court. An ambiguity exists only if after the application of the pertinent rules of interpretation, it remains uncertain which of two or more possible meanings the parties intended. No construction is required or even permissible when the language employed by the parties in the contract is plain, unambiguous and capable of only one reasonable interpretation.
(Citation, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Tucker Materials v. Devito Contracting &c., 245 Ga.App. 309, 310, 535 S.E.2d 858 (2000). See also OCGA §§ 13-2-1; 13-2-2 (statutory rules of construction). Further, the scope of a written indemnification contract is a question of law for the court, which must strictly construe the contract against the indemnitee, in this case the Authority. Park Pride of Atlanta v. City of Atlanta, 246 Ga.App. 689, 691(1), 541 S.E.2d 687 (2000); Tokheim Corp. v. First American Bank &c., 206 Ga.App. 105, 107(1), 424 S.E.2d 54 (1992). On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, this Court reviews the record de novo. Sagon Motorhomes v. Southtrust Bank of Ga., 225 Ga.App. 348, 349, 484 S.E.2d 21 (1997).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SPI Holdco, LLC v. Mookerji
...an equivalent explanatory burden on employee as to the contents of his reply); George L. Smith II Ga. World Congress Ctr. Auth. v. Soft Comdex, Inc. , 250 Ga. App. 461, 464 (1) (b), 550 S.E.2d 704 (2001) (holding that under the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," the list of "Fac......
-
Copeland v. Home Grown Music, Inc.
...an equivalent explanatory burden on employee as to the contents of his reply); George L. Smith II Ga. World Congress Ctr. Auth. v. Soft Comdex, Inc. , 250 Ga. App. 461, 464 (1) (b), 550 S.E.2d 704 (2001) (holding that under the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," the list of "Fac......
-
SPI Holdco, LLC v. Mookerji
... ... contents of his reply); George L. Smith II Ga. World ... Congress Ctr. h. v. Soft Comdex, Inc ., 250 Ga.App ... 461, 464 (1) ... ...
-
Krogh v. Pargar, LLC
...alterius." "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." See George L. Smith II Ga. World Congress Center Auth. v. Soft Comdex, Inc., 250 Ga.App. 461, 464(1)(b), 550 S.E.2d 704 (2001); Sovereign Camp, Woodman of the World v. Heflin, 188 Ga. 234, 235-236(3), 3 S.E.2d 5......