Pamela and Floyd Sapp filed a lawsuit against David Lamb and his employer, Entra Demond Blackmon d/b/a EDB Trucking, for injuries allegedly arising out of a motor vehicle collision between a vehicle driven by Pamela Sapp and a dump truck driven by Lamb while working for Blackmon. Canal Insurance Company, the insurer for Lamb and Blackmon, filed this declaratory judgment action to resolve the insurance coverage issues and to obtain a court declaration of its rights and obligations. The trial court granted summary judgment to Canal, finding that Canal did not have any liability for the collision. The Sapps appeal. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. It is undisputed that Endorsement E-5 to the automobile liability policy issued by Canal, entitled “LIMITATION OF USE,” specifically limits the policy coverage to a 50-mile radius from the listed garage location in Tifton, Georgia. This 50-mile radius limitation is also listed on the policy declarations page. The limitation of use endorsement states, “In consideration of the premium charged for policy to which this endorsement is attached, it is understood and agreed that insurance applies only while the respective vehicles are operated within the radius indicated for each vehicle.” It then lists the vehicle as a Kenworth dump truck, the garage location as Tifton, Georgia, and the radius as 50 miles. The endorsement continues: It is further agreed that the radius is measured from the garage location indicated on this endorsement for each vehicle and that no vehicle is covered if operated beyond its radius, whether as a substitute vehicle for another vehicle described in this policy or otherwise. It is expressly understood and agreed that occasional trips beyond the radius specified are not permitted. It is further undisputed that Blackmon, the named insured in the Canal policy, received a reduction in his insurance policy premiums because of the policy limitation of use endorsement. And it is undisputed that the motor vehicle collision at issue in this lawsuit occurred while the listed dump truck was well outside the 50-mile radius measured from the garage location in Tifton. Based on the clear language of the exclusion at issue here, the Canal insurance policy did not cover this incident.
In an attempt to avoid the exclusion, the Sapps and Blackmon, who filed an amicus brief, argue that the radius restriction is unenforceable because Blackmon was a “motor carrier” and the Canal insurance policy was a “motor carrier policy” subject to minimum liability limits. However, they fail to provide any evidence in support of this argument. The Sapps do not show that Blackmon was ever properly certificated or permitted as a motor carrier in the State of Georgia,1 or that the Canal insurance policy contains a “Form F” endorsement to bring the policy under the motor carrier statutory provisions.2 In short, the record is devoid of any evidence showing that the Canal insurance policy was issued as a motor carrier policy. In addition, without a transcript of the motion for summary judgment hearing, we cannot determine whether evidentiary submissions, stipulations, or statements in place by counsel were tendered at the hearing, we must assume the trial court had an adequate basis for its findings, and we must affirm the trial court’s express or implicit rulings.3
