Court Opinion

ID: 9567030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:47:15.555509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:56.262778
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree that the trial court correctly granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff, but not because the term “bridge operations” in the endorsement is ambiguous.
The damage occasioned by plaintiffs activities did not arise out of construction or operation of a bridge; instead, plaintiff was maintaining an existing bridge, and maintenance is not excluded from coverage. As noted in Division 1, it is the insurer’s duty to define clearly and explicitly limitations on coverage. St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Snitzer, 183 Ga. App. 395 (358 SE2d 925) (1987). Defendant was indeed careful to enumerate and exclude hazardous activities arising from construction and operation of bridges. Had the drafters of the policy wished to exclude painting as well, they could have done so. Because maintenance was not excluded, defendant was obligated by the terms of the policy to provide coverage to plaintiff. Moreover, since the policy clearly did not exclude plaintiff’s activities from coverage, I agree that the trial court did not err in its award of bad faith damages and attorney fees.