On August 30, 1993, Western Pacific Mutual Insurance Company became the insurer for the limited home warranty given to John L. and Mary S. Davies on the purchase that day of their newly constructed house. Under the first two years of such limited warranty, the warranty was given by the builder, and in years three through ten, Western was liable on the limited warranty. On December 4, 1995, outside the two-year warranty period, the Davies discovered a termite infestation and subsequently discovered trapped moisture in the walls and extensive termite damage. A claim was made against Western, which it denied, because the damage was not to major structural members under the limited warranty and was caused by termites, which it contended were excluded under a warranty exclusion. The Davies filed suit, which was timely answered and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied Westerns’ motion for summary judgment; on de novo consideration, we affirm. 1. Western contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment, because the limited warranty does not cover and specifically excludes the Davies’ claim.
Western contends that to come within its limited warranty the major structural defect must: 1. cause physical damage to one or more of the following specified load-bearing segments of the home; 2. cause the failure of the specific major structural components; and 3. affect its load-bearing function to the degree that it materially affects the physical safety of the occupants of the home. The structural members listed as load-bearing components of the home are: i roof framing members rafters and trusses; ii floor framing members joists and trusses; iii bearing walls; iv columns; v lintels other than lintels supporting veneers; vi girders; vii load-bearing beams; and viii foundation systems and footings. In Georgia, an insurer may fix the terms of its policy as it wishes, insuring against certain risks and excluding others, provided the terms are not contrary to law. Where an insurer grants coverage to an insured, any exclusion from that coverage must be defined clearly and distinctly. Insurance in Georgia is a matter of contract and the parties to the contract of insurance are bound by its plain and unambiguous terms. However, if a provision of an insurance contract is susceptible of two or more constructions, even when the multiple constructions are all logical and reasonable, it is ambiguous, and the statutory rules of contract construction will be applied. Pursuant to the rule of construction set forth at OCGA § 13-2-2 5, the contract will be construed strictly against the insurer/drafter and in favor of the insured. Citations omitted. Hurst v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. , 266 Ga. 712, 716 4 470 SE2d 659 1996; accord Peachtree Cas. Ins. v. Kim , 236 Ga. App. 689, 690 512 SE2d 46 1999.
