Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blakey

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; All the Justices concur, except, HUNT
• Citation: Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blakey, 255 Ga. 699, 342 S.E.2d 308 (Ga. 1986)
• Decision Date: 24 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 42999,42999
• Parties: The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. BLAKEY.

Page 308

342 S.E.2d 308

255 Ga. 699

The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. BLAKEY.

No. 42999.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 24, 1986.

Daniel A. Angelo, Newton M. Galloway, Greene, Buckley, Derieux & Jones, Atlanta, for Travelers Ins. Co. Wilbur A. Orr, Orr & Kopecky, Washington, for Elizabeth Dawkins blakey, ex'r.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves a contract of medical insurance. The facts are set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Travelers Insurance v. Blakey, 177 Ga.App. 1(1), 338 S.E.2d 451 (1985), and will be repeated or supplemented herein only as necessary. The dispute between the parties concerns the interpretation of a group policy's definition of the term "covered medical expenses." The policy defined that term as including "physician's or surgeon's services for a surgical procedure and other medical care and treatment ...." (Emphasis supplied.)

The trial court submitted the construction of the emphasized language to the jury, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, holding as follows: "Appellant argues that the language of the policy is unambiguous and as such was to be construed by the trial court. OCGA § 13-2-1. Looking at the entire provision, we agree with appellee that the policy language is ambiguous, there being more than one way it could have been construed, and that, accordingly, it was within the province of the jury to construe it. [Cits.]" Travelers Insurance v. Blakey, supra, 177 Ga.App. at 2, 338 S.E.2d 451. (Emphasis supplied.) We granted certiorari to determine "[w]hether or not the construction of a written contract is the responsibility of the court, or within the province of a jury."

The foregoing language of the Court of Appeals is premised on a two-step procedure: first, the trial court determines whether a contract is ambiguous, and second, if the court finds that it is ambiguous, then the question of its construction is submitted to the jury. However, as has been recognized and well-stated in numerous earlier decisions of the Court of Appeals, the process of contract construction actually is composed of three steps. See, e.g., Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burnett, 167 Ga.App. 480 (2), 306 S.E.2d 734 (1983); Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Hart, 162 Ga.App. 333 (3), 291 S.E.2d 410 (1982); Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Thrift-Mart, Inc., 159 Ga.App. 874 (3), 285 S.E.2d 566 (1981).

Thus, in Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Thrift-Mart, Inc., id. at 880-881, 285 S.E.2d 566, the Court of Appeals opined that " ' "[t]he construction of a contract is a question of law for the court. Where any matter of fact is involved (as the proper reading of an obscurely written word), the jury should find the fact." [Cit.] Contracts, even when ambiguous, are to be construed by the court and no jury question is presented unless after application of...