Villa Sonoma Perimeter Summit Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Mainor
| Citation | 356 Ga.App. 794,849 S.E.2d 226 |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A1263 |
| Parties | VILLA SONOMA PERIMETER SUMMIT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MAINOR. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Jason Alexander LoMonaco, for Appellant.
Mark T. Dietrichs, Melissa Kaye Kahren, Atlanta, for Appellee.
Following two separate water leaks in his condominium unit, Jesse F. Mainor filed suit against the Villa Sonoma Perimeter Summit Condominium Association ("the association") for breach of contract and attorney fees.1 The trial court granted Mainor's motion for summary judgment and the association appeals. On appeal, the association contends that the trial court erred by holding that the Georgia Condominium Act ("the Act"), OCGA § 44-3-70 et seq., required that the association maintain coverage for damage caused by water leaks. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Mainor was the owner of a condominium unit located in Villa Sonoma at Perimeter Summit. In January 2018, his condominium unit sustained damages as a result of water leaking from a hot water heater tank inside another unit. Mainor's unit "sustained ... damages, including costs incurred to repair and replace the water damage to the unit's dining room ceiling and floor; living room and kitchen walls; living room ceiling and floors; and kitchen ceiling and floors." The alleged damages for the January 2018 water leak were in excess of $10,000. Approximately one month later, Mainor sustained another water leak causing another $4,480.60 in damage.
The association held an insurance policy that provided certain coverage for water leaks and water damage, however, the relevant insurer denied coverage for the water losses at issue. The reason for the denial is not a subject of this appeal. That policy had a $10,000 deductible, which would apply separately to each water leak.
After Mainor filed suit, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Mainor's motion and denied the association's motion, holding that the term "fire and extended coverage" in the Act included coverage for damage caused by water. Accordingly, the trial court held that the association breached its duty under the Act by obtaining a policy that provided coverage for water damage, but with an impermissibly high deductible. If the association was required to have coverage for water leaks pursuant to the Act then, at most, under OCGA § 44-3-94 the deductible allocated per casualty loss could not exceed $5,000. The trial court further held that, based on the terms of the declaration, the association could only assess Mainer up to $1,000 for the deductible for the water damage at issue.
On appeal, the association contends that the trial court erred by holding that the Act required the association to maintain coverage for water leaks. We agree.
"As in all appeals involving the construction of statutes, our review is conducted under a de novo standard." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bowen v. Savoy, ––– Ga. ––––, 839 S.E.2d 546 (2020).
"When we consider the meaning of a statute, we must presume that the General Assembly meant what it said and said what it meant." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Deal v. Coleman , 294 Ga. 170, 172 (1) (a), 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013). "To that end, we must afford the statutory text its "plain and ordinary meaning, we must view the statutory text in the context in which it appears, and we must read the statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 172-173 (1) (a), 751 S.E.2d 337. "In all interpretations of statutes, the ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except words of art or words connected with a particular trade or subject matter, which shall have the signification attached to them by experts in such trade or with reference to such subject matter." OCGA § 1-3-1 (b).
The Act provides that "[t]he association shall obtain ... [a] property insurance policy or policies affording fire and extended coverage insurance for and in an amount consonant with the full insurable replacement cost, less deductibles, of all buildings and structures within the condominium." OCGA § 44-3-107 (a) (1) (emphasis supplied). The threshold issue in this case was whether the term "fire and extended coverage" included coverage for water leaks.
The association argues that "fire and extended coverage" has a specific, well-established meaning in the insurance context that does not include coverage for water leaks. We agree. See generally Holmes v. Chatham Area Transit Auth. , 234 Ga. App. 42, 44, 505 S.E.2d 225 (1998) (); Shoffner v. Woodward , 195 Ga. App. 778, 779-780 (1) (a), 394 S.E.2d 921 (1990) ().
Although not expressly defined in the statute, "extended coverage" in the context of a fire insurance policy is a phrase connected with the insurance trade. "Georgia, like all other states, prescribes a standard form of fire insurance, modeled on the New York statute." Fire and windstorm insurance, 3 Ga. Real Estate Law & Procedure § 26:192 (7th ed.). "There are also forms for what is called "extended coverage," dealing with windstorm, hail, aircraft, riot, vehicles, explosion, and smoke." Id. Likewise, the Georgia Office of Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner defines extended coverage in the context of a fire policy as, "Coverages: Fire -- Extended Coverage: [a]n extension...
To continue reading
Request your trial