Georgia Power Company “Georgia Power” operates an electrical transmission line over the property of Wilann Properties I, LLC “Wilann” in Floyd County. Georgia Power filed this action seeking a declaration that it had the right to construct, operate, and maintain new poles and new electrical lines within its two easements across Wilann’s property and seeking to enjoin Wilann from interfering with its construction and maintenance activities. Wilann, who contended that the easements were too vague to make a determination of their boundaries, counterclaimed for a declaration that Georgia Power had no right to expand its electric lines and asserted claims for inverse condemnation, trespass, and injunctive relief. After the superior court granted interlocutory relief to Georgia Power and Wilann’s associated appeal was dismissed by this Court, Georgia Power moved for summary judgment on its claims and on Wilann’s counterclaim. The trial court granted summary judgment to Georgia Power, and Wilann appeals. Wilann claims that the trial court erred in finding that i the easements’ boundaries were clearly established, ii the change in use of the easements was a change in degree of use and did not amount to an inverse condemnation, iii Georgia Power had not abandoned the easements’ 100-foot right-of-way, and iv a construction company employed by Georgia Power was an independent contractor for whose actions Georgia Power could not be held liable. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Wilann’s claims of error have no merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and the undisputed evidence show that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c.” Bank of North Ga. v. Windermere Dev., Inc., 316 Ga. App. 33, 34 728 SE2d 714 2012. “On appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment, the appellate courts conduct a de novo review, construing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Citation omitted. Id.
