Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Horton , 232 Ga. 355 ( 1974 )

Gunter, Justice,

dissenting.

I am of the opinion that a judgment in this case in favor of the appellant was demanded as a matter of law, and I would reverse the judgment below.

The insurance policy involved in this case contained on its face the following: "The insurance afforded is only with respect to such and so many of the following coverages and divisions thereunder as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges shown below or in the attached general liability schedule.”

Below this language was a schedule showing various kinds of coverages and the premium charges for each such coverage. Division number four in this schedule of coverages was: "Products (including completed operations).” This schedule further shows that the premiums for this coverage were based on the total sales of the insured. Division four on the face of this policy was left completely blank, showing that no premium was charged for this coverage. The same was true with all of the seven preceding policies that had been issued by the agent to the insured. All of them showed on their face that no premium was charged for this type of coverage.

I would therefore hold that the instant policy and all preceding policies were not subject to reformation. They all showed plainly on their face that no coverage was provided for: "products (including completed operations).”

I think that the insurance carrier was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law, and I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent.