Goldeagle Ventures, LLC v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co.

349 Ga.App. 446

825 S.E.2d 881

GOLDEAGLE VENTURES, LLC

v.COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

A18A1789

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 13, 2019

Philip M. Casto, Flowery Branch, for Appellant

Mozley Finlayson & Loggins, Wayne D. Taylor, Michelle A. Sherman, Atlanta, for Appellee

Coomer, Judge.

Goldeagle Ventures, LLC ("Goldeagle") appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of its insurer, Covington Specialty Insurance Company ("Covington"). In its motion, Goldeagle argued that the insurance policy that it obtained from Covington covered the cost of repairing lights that were damaged in an electrical storm in the space it leased from Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnership at Sugarloaf Mills Mall. Conversely, Covington argued that the lights were not covered under the policy, and the trial court agreed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

"On appeal from the grant of summary judgment this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law." Blake v. KES, Inc. , 329 Ga. App. 742, 742, 766 S.E.2d 138 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to Goldeagle, the evidence shows that Goldeagle leased a building that contained Open High Bay Industrial Metal Halide 400W lights ("the lights") that were attached to the building and in place before Goldeagle leased the space from Sugarloaf Mall. According to Goldeagle, the lights were attached to the end of a metal rod by a hook and thumb screw attached to the light assembly. They were plugged into a common power receptacle above the support beam to which the metal rod was attached and could be removed by hand without using any tools. A lightning storm damaged 103 of the 320 lights.

At the time of the storm, Goldeagle had a commercial property insurance policy issued by Covington. The policy provided $125,000 in coverage for "Business Personal Property," as stated on the "Commercial Property Coverage Part Declarations." In pertinent part, the relevant provisions state:

A. Coverage

We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.

1. Covered Property

Covered Property ... means the type of property described in this section, A. 1. and limited in A. 2. , Property Not Covered, if a Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property.

a. Building , meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, including: (1) Completed additions; (2) Fixtures, including outdoor fixtures; (3) Permanently installed: (a) Machinery and (b) Equipment; (4) Personal property owned by you that is used to maintain or service the building or structure or its premises....

b. Your Business Personal Property located in or on the building described in the Declarations ... consisting of the following unless otherwise specified in the Declarations or on the Your Business Personal Property – Separation of Coverage form: (1) Furniture and fixtures; (2) Machinery and equipment; (3) "Stock"; (4) All other personal property owned by you and used in your business; (5) Labor, materials or services furnished or arranged by you on personal property of others; (6) Your use interest as tenant in improvements and betterments. Improvements and betterments are fixtures, alterations, installations or additions: (a) Made a part of the building or structure you occupy but do not own; and (b) You acquired or made at your expense but cannot legally remove; (7) Leased personal property for which you have a contractual responsibility to insure, unless otherwise provided for under Personal Property of Others.

c. Personal Property of Others that is: (1) In your care, custody or control; and (2) Located in or on the building described in the Declarations.... However, our payment for loss of or damage to personal property of others will only be for the account of the owner of the property.

Goldeagle submitted a claim to Covington under the policy for the damaged lights. Covington denied the claim on the grounds that the damaged lights were a part of the building rather than business personal property and were not installed by Goldeagle as a betterment or improvement. Covington indicated that there was no coverage for the building and directed Goldeagle to Section "A. 1. (b)" of the policy, which is quoted above. Goldeagle then filed its action against Covington for breach of contract and bad faith. Covington moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy precluded coverage and that its denial was not made in bad faith. Goldeagle filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. The trial court summarily denied Goldeagle's motion and granted Covington's. This appeal followed, in which Goldeagle argues, in two separate enumerations of error, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant its motion and in granting Covington's motion. We address these errors simultaneously and find that the trial court's judgment is correct.

"At the outset, we note that insurance in Georgia is a matter of contract, and this Court has long held that such contract disputes are well suited for adjudication by summary judgment because construction of a contract is ordinarily a matter of law for the court." Southern Trust Ins. Co. v. Cravey , 345 Ga. App. 697, 698, 814 S.E.2d 802 (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). When construing a contract,

we must first decide whether the language is clear and unambiguous. Of course, under Georgia law, an insurance company is free to fix the terms of its policies as it sees fit, so long as they are not contrary to the law, and it may insure against certain risks while excluding others. And as is true with all contracts, unambiguous terms in an insurance policy require no construction, and their plain meaning will be given full effect, regardless of whether they might be of benefit to the insurer, or be of detriment to an insured. Thus, if the language is unambiguous, the court simply enforces the contract according to its clear terms; the contract alone is looked to for its meaning. But if a contract is ambiguous, the court must apply the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity. And contractual provisions are ambiguous when they are susceptible to more than one meaning, even if each meaning is logical and reasonable. Indeed, a contract is ambiguous if the words leave the intent of the parties in question—i.e., that intent is uncertain, unclear, or is open to various interpretations.

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Neisler , 334 Ga. App. 284, 286-287 (1), 779 S.E.2d 55 (2015) (citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted).

In order to determine what coverages were provided in an insurance policy, we look first to the Declaration Page of the policy. As we explained in Simalton v. AIU Ins. Co. , 284 Ga. App. 152, 154 (1), 643 S.E.2d 553 (2007),

[t]he Declarations Page represents the means by which an insurer tailors its standard form policy to allow insureds to purchase only the types of coverage, and the amount of such coverage, that they desire. It "is the one part of the policy likely to be read by the insured, and contains the terms most likely to have been requested by the insured." 16 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts, § 49:25 (4th ed.) ; see also Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 168 N.J. 590, 775 A.2d 1262, 1270 (2001) (Because the declarations page is the "one page most likely to be read and understood by the insured," insurers should "incorporate thereon as much information as may reasonably be included."). For that reason, the form policy must be read together with the Declarations Page to determine exactly which coverages, and in what amounts, an insured has purchased.

Id . at 154 (1), 643 S.E.2d 553 (footnote and...