Blue Ridge Auto Auction v. Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co., 343 Ga. App. 319

Blue Ridge Auto Auction sued Acceptance Indemnity for failing to defend/pay claims after a Blue Ridge employee, while driving a vehicle owned by insured Tommy Nobis Foundation, struck numerous auction attendees.
The vehicle was donated to Tommy Nobis Foundation, which uses auction houses (like Blue Ridge) to sell donated cars as part of its charitable used-auto-dealer business.
Acceptance Indemnity issued a garage policy naming Tommy Nobis Foundation as insured and listed its business as "used auto dealer"; the vehicle was a covered auto under the policy.
Acceptance denied coverage, asserting an exclusion for permissive users working in a business of selling autos unless that business is the named insured’s "garage operations," and arguing Blue Ridge’s actions were not Tommy Nobis’s garage operations and were outside listed locations.
The trial court granted Acceptance’s summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed, finding policy language ambiguous and construing it for coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blue Ridge is an "insured" under the garage policy when using a covered auto with permission while conducting vehicle sales at auction	Blue Ridge: Tommy Nobis’s business is a used-auto dealer; sale by auction is necessary or incidental to its garage business, so Blue Ridge’s use falls within "garage operations" and is covered	Acceptance: Blue Ridge was not part of Tommy Nobis’s "garage operations," so the permissive-user exclusion applies and excludes coverage	Court: "Garage business" is ambiguous; ambiguities strictly construed against insurer — Blue Ridge is an insured; summary judgment for Acceptance reversed
Whether coverage is limited to operations at locations listed on the Supplementary Schedule	Blue Ridge: The policy’s definition of "garage operations" includes "all operations necessary or incidental to a garage business," so listing Marietta does not limit coverage to that site	Acceptance: Listing Marietta as the only location limits garage operations to that address, excluding auction activities elsewhere	Court: No explicit policy limitation to listed locations; exclusions construed narrowly against insurer — location listing does not defeat coverage

Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (summary judgment standard and view of evidence)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Neisler, 334 Ga. App. 284 (rules for construing ambiguous insurance provisions and exclusions)
Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meyers, 249 Ga. App. 322 (policy construed according to reasonable expectations of insured)
Thomas v. Intl. Indem. Co., 232 Ga. App. 574 (distinguished; involved similar language but different policy limitations)