Opinion ID: 1636685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Undisputed Facts and Procedural History

Text: Colony issued IMMI a commercial general liability policy of insurance, no. GL113031, that provided annual coverage from September 10, 2001, to September 10, 2002. An endorsement to this policy added as additional insureds all persons or organizations as required by written contract with the named insured. On March 28, 2002, IMMI executed a written contract with Georgia-Pacific, whereby IMMI agreed to perform work on the roof of Georgia-Pacific's facility in Cedar Springs, Georgia. After entering into this contract, IMMI added Georgia-Pacific as an additional insured under the Colony policy. Georgia-Pacific was also listed as an insured under a commercial general liability policy of insurance it had with Lumbermens, policy no. 5AA045534-00, that provided annual coverage from May 15, 2001, to May 15, 2002. On April 18, 2002, while both policies were in effect, White, an employee of IMMI, was killed when he fell through the roof of the Georgia-Pacific facility. On July 11, 2002, White's estate sued Georgia-Pacific, IMMI, and fictitiously named parties, alleging negligence, wantonness, and willfulness (hereinafter referred to as the underlying case). IMMI was subsequently dismissed from the underlying case after a determination that White was an employee of IMMI's for workers' compensation purposes. Pursuant to the additional insured endorsement in IMMI's policy, Colony defended the underlying case under a reservation of rights. Colony thereafter filed a declaratory-judgment action, naming Georgia-Pacific and Lumbermens as defendants and seeking a determination that the coverage provided under both the Colony policy and the Lumbermens policy was excess coverage and that Lumbermens was required to defend and indemnify Georgia-Pacific in proportion with each insurer's share of the total limits of applicable coverage. On September 21, 2007, Georgia-Pacific and Lumbermens filed a counterclaim alleging that Colony had breached its enhanced obligation of good faith in defending Georgia-Pacific under a reservation of rights. On January 8, 2008, Georgia-Pacific and Lumbermens filed a motion for a summary judgment, contending that the Lumbermens policy was not a policy of insurance [1] and that the coverage provided by the Colony policy was the primary coverage. On February 19, 2008, Colony settled the underlying case. On April 1, 2008, Colony filed a motion for a summary judgment, seeking a judgment on its complaint for a declaratory judgment and on Georgia-Pacific and Lumbermens' counterclaim alleging a breach of the enhanced obligation of good faith. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Lumbermens and Georgia-Pacific on Colony's declaratory-judgment complaint, from which Colony appeals; the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Colony on Lumbermens and Georgia Pacific's counterclaim, which alleged a breach of the enhanced obligation of good faith, from which Georgia-Pacific and Lumbermens appeal.