You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Southeastern Color Lithographers, Inc. v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance

Citations: 296 S.E.2d 378; 164 Ga. App. 70; 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2712Docket: 64764

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; October 21, 1982; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals of Georgia considered a declaratory judgment action by Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company against Southeastern Color Lithographers, Inc., regarding liability under an insurance policy. The dispute arose from a co-defendant's claim of a breached oral employment contract with Southeastern, which allegedly caused financial loss. Southeastern denied any anticipatory breach, while the insurer argued that the policy did not cover the alleged breach and that timely notice was not provided. The court scrutinized the policy's definition of 'occurrence,' requiring accidental property damage, and ultimately found no such damage occurred, thus absolving the insurer from defending the claim. The court emphasized that contractual liabilities are excluded from coverage unless involving incidental contracts. Additionally, it ruled that any representations by a sales agent regarding coverage post-suit cannot alter policy terms to include excluded risks. Citing relevant case law, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the insurer, establishing that the alleged financial losses did not qualify as property damage under the policy.

Legal Issues Addressed

Definition and Requirement of Property Damage

Application: The court held that the insurer's obligation to defend depended on proving accidental occurrence leading to physical property damage, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Reasoning: The court concluded that, since no bodily injury claim was presented, coverage depended on proving an accidental occurrence leading to physical property damage.

Estoppel and Waiver in Insurance Coverage

Application: The court ruled that representations by a sales agent about coverage cannot extend policy coverage to risks not included or explicitly excluded by the policy.

Reasoning: Such statements cannot alter the lack of coverage, as doctrines like estoppel or waiver cannot extend policy coverage to risks not included or explicitly excluded.

Exclusion of Contractual Liabilities in Insurance Policies

Application: The insurance policy excludes coverage for liabilities assumed under contracts unless they pertain to 'incidental contracts' related to the insured's business.

Reasoning: The policy excludes liability assumed under contracts, except for 'incidental contracts' related to the insured's business.

Insurance Policy Coverage and Definition of Occurrence

Application: The court examined whether the alleged breach of contract constituted an 'occurrence' under the insurance policy, which requires an accident leading to physical property damage.

Reasoning: The court analyzed the liability insurance policy, which covers damages resulting from an 'occurrence,' defined as an accident causing property damage that is neither expected nor intended by the insured.