Ellen Williams d/b/a Fine Gold (“Williams”) sued Fallaize Insur *412 anee Agency, Inc. (“Fallaize”) and Lloyds Underwriters (“Lloyds”) after she sustained a loss of approximately $13,000 for which Lloyds denied insurance coverage. She appeals the summary judgments granted to both Fallaize and Lloyds. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
On summary judgment, we must construe the evidence and all reasonable inferences and conclusions in favor of the non-movant, Williams.
Medley v. Boomershine Pontiac &c.,
On June 11, 1992, approximately six months after Williams renewed the рolicy, she suffered a loss when someone stole jewelry out of her car. At the time the jewelry was stolen, Williams was inside a store, delivering jewelry to a customer and at least 25 feet away from her car. The record shows that while Williams was inside the store, someone smashed her car window, punctured the tires, released the trunk, stole a briefcase cоntaining jewelry worth approximately $13,000 from the trunk and fled the scene. Williams admitted that she was not watching her vehicle at all times because she was busy transacting business. She further admitted thаt she did not actually see anyone break her car window, open her trunk, and take the jewelry. Lloyds, relying on the policy’s exclusion for unattended vehicles, denied coverage.
1. Williams contends that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to Fallaize on her negligent misrepresentation claim. She alleged that on at least two different ocсasions she requested that Fallaize find insurance which would cover an unattended vehicle, and that Fallaize falsely represented to her that the coverage was unavailable. Williams argues that because she relied on Fallaize’s misrepresentation, she did not attempt to obtain coverage from another agency and suffered an unneсessary loss. Williams points out that after the loss at issue here, she obtained the desired coverage through another insurance agency.
“To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of ma
*413
terial fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (с). A
defendant
may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiffs case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s clаim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. . . . See, e.g.,
Holiday Inns v. Newton,
At the outset we note that Williams is not claiming that Fallaize failed to procure coverage, but rather that Fallaize told her no such cоverage was available.
In
Robert & Co. Assocs. v. Rhodes-Haverty Partnership,
In support of its motion, Fallaize offered evidence that Williams admitted that she never did anything to remove the exclusion, and that she had little difficulty obtaining the unattended vehicle coverage after she shopped for it elsewhere. In addition, the rеcord shows that Williams’ Lloyds’ policy contained a page titled “ADDITIONAL COVERAGES.” That page contained a section titled, “UNATTENDED VEHICLES” with sections to be completed for: NAME OF SALESMAN (“none” typed in space); DETAILS OF AUTOMOBILE (section left blank); PROTECTION (section left blank); AMOUNT *414 TO BE INSURED (section left blank).” This portion of Williams’ Lloyds’ policy indicates that coverage for an unattended vehicle was available somewhere in the insurance marketplace and upon reading her policy, Williams should have inquired further. Furthermore, even without such language alerting Williams to the availability of coverage, she should have exercised due diligence by shopping the marketplace as she did after her loss. Thus, inasmuch as the record reflects a failure by Williams to exercisе due diligence, Fallaize has pierced the pleadings and shown the absence of evidence of Williams’ justifiable reliance thereby negating an essential element of Williams’ prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation. Williams has produced no evidence in response showing her reliance was justifiable. Accordingly, the trial court did nоt err in granting summary judgment to Fallaize. See, e.g., Newton, supra at 437.
2. Williams contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Lloyds because the terms of the unattended vehicle exclusion are ambiguous and subjеct to more than one interpretation in that the policy fails to define “actually in or upon the vehicle” or “attend the vehicle.” Williams claims there is a jury question as to whether she was “actually in or upon” the vehicle at the time of the loss.
When the language in an insurance policy is clear, an insurance policy is interpreted according to its plain language and express terms, just like any other contract.
Alewine v. Horace Mann Ins. Co.,
Thus, Williams’ contention that she was “in or upon” and attending her vеhicle within the meaning of her policy is without merit. Although Williams claims that she attempted to keep a watchful eye on the vehicle, she acknowledged that she was unable to dо so at all times. Her own testimony indicated that: she did not watch her vehicle at all times; she was away from her vehicle by at least 25 feet and inside a store when the loss occurrеd; she was distracted as she transacted a sale with a customer; and she failed to notice the break-in as it occurred. Based on the plain language of the contraсt and construing the ordinary meaning of its words, it is apparent that at the time of loss, Williams was neither “actually in” nor “upon” her vehicle.
3. Finally, we address Williams’ contention that Lloyds is es-topped from asserting the unattended vehicle exclusion because Lloyds failed to provide her with a poliсy within a reasonable period of time of its issuance as required by OCGA § 33-24-14.
Even assuming that Williams did not receive a copy of the renewal policy until after the loss occurred, Lloyds is nоt estopped from relying on the exclusion to deny coverage. When an insurance company fails to mail or deliver the insurance policy to the insured within a reasonаble amount of time after its issuance, the insurance company may still rely on exclusions contained in the policy of which “the insured otherwise had notice. . . .”
Investors Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Norsworthy,
Judgment affirmed.