Court Opinion

ID: 9583093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:34:44.330087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:50.870425
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
Contrary to the majority’s opinion, Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc. (S&H) does not argue that the insurance policy in issue here was a series of separate one-year contracts. S&H has consistently stated before the Court of Appeals, in its petition for certiorari and in its brief in this Court that the insurance policy here was for a three-year term. Rather, S&H argues that due to ambiguous language in the policy, it is entitled to recover the $50,000 “employee dishonesty” coverage amount for each year of the three-year policy term. Because I agree with S&H that an ambiguity exists and because Georgia law requires that such ambiguities be construed in favor of the insured, Ryan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Ga. 869 (413 SE2d 705) (1992), I respectfully dissent.
The non-cumulation clause at issue in this appeal has been the subject of considerable analysis by our sister courts over the past twenty-five years. See, e.g., Columbia Heights Motors v. Allstate Ins. Co., 275 NW2d 32 (Minn. 1979). While most of the cases involved a series of one-year policies, a handful have addressed the situation present here, where one policy covered a multi-year period. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Hopkins Sporting Goods, 522 NW2d 837 (Iowa 1994); Columbia Heights Motors, supra. In Cincinnati Ins. Co., the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed whether the three-year policy issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company to its insured, with $15,000 coverage for employee dishonesty, “provided separate $15,000 protections for each of the three years of the policy, or was limited to a total of $15,000 for the entire three-year period.” Id. at 838. In that case, as in this one, Cincinnati Insurance Company had a non-cumulation clause that barred accumulating the limits of liability from year to year or period to period regardless of the number of years the policy continued in force.13 The Supreme Court of Iowa held that
*740Decided March 29,2004 —
Reconsideration denied April 13, 2004.
Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall, William B. Warlick, for appellant.
Howard, Clark & Mercer, Glen W. Clark, Jr., for appellee.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Linda G. Birchall, amicus curiae.
[a]lthough Cincinnati claims otherwise, we think there is an ambiguity by reason of the policy’s non-accumulation clause. That clause, especially the word “cumulatively,” can be interpreted as supporting the position either of Cincinnati or [the insured]. Case authority supports both interpretations. Indeed courts have found similar or identical clauses: (1) unambiguous in supporting the position of Cincinnati, [cits.]; (2) unambiguous in supporting the position of [the insured], [cits.]; and, finally, (3) ambiguous. [Cits.]
Id. at 839-840. The Iowa Supreme Court found the language to be ambiguous and ruled against Cincinnati in 1994. Rather than clarifying this litigious phrasing or eliminating it altogether in favor of language that insureds would have no difficulty understanding, Cincinnati retained the “cumulative” language in the policy it issued S&H in 1997. This litigation now results with yet another insured asserting claims based on this contested contractual language the insurer chose to use.
As the Supreme Court of Iowa carefully noted, an ambiguity in an insurance policy does not “necessarily appear[ ] merely because case authority can be found to support divergent interpretation of a policy’s wording.” Id. at 840. However, based on my review of the policy as a whole, the non-cumulation provision specifically, and the analyses employed by other courts in reviewing similar policies, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusory statement that Cincinnati’s non-cumulation provision is unambiguous. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of S&H.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.

 “Regardless of the number of years this endorsement shall continue in force and the number of premiums which shall be payable or paid, the Company’s total limit of liability *740shall not be cumulative from year to year or period to period.” Id. at 838.