United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, and Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Inc. collectively “USF&G” filed an action against James and Christy Anderson “appellants” and others, seeking reimbursement from defendants as indemnitors of surety bonds issued by USF&G on behalf of Eagle Construction Company of Georgia, Inc. “Eagle”. The trial court granted USF&G’s motions for summary judgment as to liability and damages under the indemnity agreement, and awarded USF&G $141,798.32. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of damages. For reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court. In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence. To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Citations and punctuation omitted. Carter v. Tokai Financial Svcs. , 231 Ga. App. 755 500 SE2d 638 1998. See also Sullivan v. Fabe , 198 Ga. App. 824, 825 1 403 SE2d 208 1991. Viewed most favorably to appellants, the evidence shows that Eagle operated as a construction contractor on projects throughout the southeastern United States. USF&G issued performance and payment bonds on behalf of Eagle for construction contracts between Eagle and owners and prime contractors, guaranteeing that Eagle would complete these contracts and that it would pay its suppliers and subcontractors. On September 24, 1997, Eagle, Steven J. Anderson, Tonya Darlene Anderson, and appellants executed a Master Surety Agreement “indemnity agreement” in favor of USF&G and in partial consideration for the issuance of the performance and payment bonds. Section III A of the indemnity agreement provided that, UNDERSIGNED shall exonerate, hold harmless, indemnify and keep indemnified SURETY from and against any and all demands, claims, liabilities, losses and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature including but not limited to interest, court costs and counsel fees imposed upon, sustained, or incurred by SURETY by reason of: 1 SURETY having executed, provided or procured BONDS in behalf of PRINCIPAL, or 2 UNDERSIGNED’S failure to perform or comply with any of the provisions of this AGREEMENT. Section IV further provided that,
A the liability of UNDERSIGNED hereunder shall extend to and include all amounts paid by SURETY in good faith under the belief that: 1 SURETY was or might be liable therefor; 2 such payments were necessary or advisable to protect any of SURETY’S rights or to avoid or lessen SURETY’S liability or alleged liability. . . ; C the vouchers or other evidence of such payments or an itemized statement of payments sworn to by an officer of SURETY shall be prima facie evidence of the fact and extent of the liability of UNDERSIGNED to SURETY. In 1999, Eagle experienced financial difficulties, resulting in its inability to complete projects and/or pay subcontractors and suppliers. Subsequently, USF&G received claims on the bonds it issued for several construction projects. USF&G advised Eagle of the claims and requested Eagle’s assistance in addressing the claims, several of which resulted in lawsuits. Pursuant to its obligations under the bonds, USF&G incurred attorney fees related to defending the claims on behalf of Eagle, and also made direct payments to several of Eagle’s subcontractors and suppliers.
