Global Ship Systems, LLC, GSS Operations, LLC, and Southeastern Industrial & Marine Services, Inc. collectively, “Global” own a shipyard in placeplaceSavannahAfter the shipyard’s marine railway experienced failures, Global filed claims under insurance policies issued by Continental Casualty Company “CNA” and Landmark American Insurance Company and Arch Specialty Insurance Company collectively, “Landmark/Arch”. The companies denied coverage, and Global brought an action against them. The trial court granted summary judgment to CNA on the issue of coverage under its policy and denied Global’s motion for partial summary judgment as to coverage under the Landmark/Arch policy. Global appeals, and, for reasons that follow, we affirm. “Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”1 On appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the law and the evidence.2 We construe the evidence and all inferences drawn from it in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.3 The underlying facts are not in dispute here. Global’s shipyard uses a marine railway that “transports vessels into and out of the water.” The marine railway consists of:a a set of parallel railway tracks mounted on a concreted bedplate, which are approximately 350 feet in length and on a 16 degree incline that run into the Savannah River; b a cradle flatbed that rides on rollers trucks on the railway tracks and onto which a vessel is placed for movement; c a hauling chain, which is kept in tension by a separate chain the tension chain, that is attached to the cradle and fed around two gear sprockets ; and d a six stage speed reducer reduction gears that is coupled to an electric motor. The marine railway experienced mechanical failure in December 2004 and May 2005, and Global sought coverage for its damages under insurance policies issued by CNA and Landmark/Arch. The companies denied coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment to CNA on the issue of coverage under its policy and denied Global’s motion for partial summary judgment as to coverage under the Landmark/Arch policy.
1. Global first argues that the trial court erred in holding that the “marine railway is a ‘hoist’ as that term is used in the insurance policy issued by CNA.” Both parties moved for summary judgment on this issue, and the trial court granted summary judgment to CNA. The policy issued by CNA was for “Boiler and Machinery Coverage.” In defining the objects covered, the policy specifically excludes any “conveyor, crane, elevator, escalator, or hoist, but not excluding any electrical machine or electrical apparatus mounted on or used with this equipment.” CNA contends that the marine railway is a hoist and therefore “coverage is limited to any electrical machine or electrical apparatus mounted on or used with this equipment.” Global argues that CNA’s interpretation of the term “hoist” is not the only reasonable interpretation, and that the mere fact that the marine railway lifts or “hoists” objects does not make it a hoist.
