The central issue in this case was whether an installation rider, added for substantial additional premium, overcame fundamental policy exclusions otherwise applicable to damage to a customer's property. The insured machinery company appealed from a trial court judgment that it did not.

The insured had contracted to move a hydraulic press from one area of a customer's building and install it in another. The press was dropped in the moving process, resulting in damage to it and a claim in excess of $23,000.

The insured's general liability insurer based its denial of liability on exclusions in the policy, generally applicable to such insurance, for "....(1) personal property in the care, custody or control of the insured" and "....(2) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired, or replaced because 'your work' was incorrectly performed on it."

The insured based its demand for coverage on a rider or endorsement for which it paid an additional annual charge of approximately $1,000, to cover installation of machinery and equipment for industrial customers.

The appeal court, with regard to the care, custody or control exclusion, noted that the Georgia Supreme Court found the exclusion, standing alone in a bailment situation, "clear and unambiguous." The lower court, however, concluded that the machinery installation rider warranted a contrary conclusion in the matter under review. "How could an insured ever install a machine without taking control of it?" It found nothing in the rider limiting its scope of coverage to incidental damage.

With respect to the work performed exclusion, the appeal court noted that its purpose was to avoid a work guarantee. It said that the machine installation rider would be rendered useless if the exclusion were given effect in the matter at hand.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insured and against the insurance company. (TIFTON MACHINE WORKS, INCORPORATED, Appellant v. COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Georgia Court of Appeals. No. A96A1798. November 21, 1996. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5896.)