As with other contracts, the construction and interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law for the court to decide. Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). Ordinary rules of contract construction govern the interpretation of an insurance contract.
However, the insurer bears the burden to prove that a policy exclusion applies to the facts of the case. Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (Ga.Ct.App. 2018) (quoting Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Wilmont, 180 S.E.2d 913, 914 (Ga.Ct.App. 1971)) ("Where the insurer seeks to invoke an exclusion contained in its policy, it has the burden of proving the facts come within the exclusion.").
"An insurance policy is a contract." Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 344 Ga. App. 444, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (2018). "A condition precedent must be performed before the contract becomes absolute and obligatory upon the other party." O.C.G.A. § 13-3-4.
Insurance policies are contracts, the construction and interpretation of which are matters of law for the court. Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport, 344 Ga. App. 444, 445, 810 S.E.2d 617 (2018). "To determine whether an insurer owes its insured a duty to defend a particular lawsuit, Georgia law directs us to compare the allegations of the complaint, as well as the facts supporting those allegations, against the provisions of the insurance contract."
"An insurance policy is a contract." Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport , 344 Ga.App. 444, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (2018). And a premium is consideration for an insurance contract.
Once the insured's burden is met, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that a policy exclusion applies to the facts of the case. Haulers Ins. v. Davenport, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Interstate Life & Accident Ins. v. Wilmont, 180 S.E.2d 913, 914 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)) ("Where the insurer seeks to invoke an exclusion contained in its policy, it has the burden of proving the facts come within the exclusion."). B. Policy Language
Once the insured's burden is met, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that a policy exclusion applies to the facts of the case. Haulers Ins. v. Davenport, 810 S.E.2d 617, 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Interstate Life & Accident Ins. v. Wilmont, 180 S.E.2d 913, 914 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)) ("Where the insurer seeks to invoke an exclusion contained in its policy, it has the burden of proving the facts come within the exclusion."). This Order focuses on the second part of this analysis, because Lloyd's argues policy exclusions apply to Navicent's claim for indemnification. Because there are questions of fact that preclude the Court from determining whether the exclusions bar coverage as a matter of law, the Court must deny both parties' motions for summary judgment on Lloyd's of London's cooperation and prior-knowledge defenses.
See Harlan v. Six Flags Over Georgia , 250 Ga. 352, 353, 297 S.E.2d 468 (1982) (noting that "elevators, taxicabs, buses, and railroads" are public conveyances). See also Haulers Ins. Co. v. Davenport , 344 Ga. App. 444, 446-448 (2), 810 S.E.2d 617 (2018) (holding ordinary, plain, and unambiguous meaning of term "public conveyance" means the vehicle must be held out indiscriminately to the general public for hire). We therefore affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ace Insurance.