This is an action for rescission of a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Mercury Indemnity Company of Georgia “Mercury” to Lawrence and Susan Pope. The Popes appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Mercury, asserting that the trial court erred: 1 in finding that the Popes made a material misrepresentation to Mercury to induce it to reinstate the insurance policy in question; 2 in failing to consider evidence showing that the Popes never received the required notice of cancellation of that policy; and 3 in finding that Mercury was not bound by statements regarding the policy’s coverage made by the independent insurance agent through whom the Popes procured the policy. Discerning no error, we affirm. “On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the evidence to determine if there exists a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law.” Smith v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Cos. 1
So viewed, the record shows that in July 2004 the Popes, acting through their independent insurance agent, Gerald Woodworth, applied for a homeowner’s insurance policy with Mercury. Woodworth assisted the Popes in filling out Mercury’s application for insurance and in response to specific questions thereon, the Popes indicated that they had a swimming pool, a diving board, and a trampoline. In conjunction with that application, Mrs. Pope wrote a check for the premium and executed two policy form endorsements. One of those endorsements excluded policy coverage for liability arising out of the ownership or use of the trampoline and the other excluded coverage for losses caused by dogs. Pursuant to this application, Mercury issued Homeowner’s Policy Number GH 38000694 “the Policy” to the Popes, with effective dates of July 13, 2004 to July 13, 2005.