The general liability insurer of an equipment service company sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that its policy did not provide coverage for a wrongful death claim brought against its insured. The insurer appealed from a trial court ruling that coverage was provided in the circumstances.

The insured had made repairs to a movable irrigation system used on an extensive farming operation, including the replacement of electrical equipment. Two months later a man who leased a portion of the farmland from its owner, including the use of the irrigation system, towed the equipment to another location and was shocked to death while operating it. The service company (the insured) had completed its work two months prior to the incident and did not perform any subsequent work on it.

The policy under review contained a "completed operations hazard" exclusion. The term was defined to include ". . . .bodily injury and property damage arising out of operations or a reliance upon a representation or warranty made at any time with respect thereto, but only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the named insured. . . ."

The appeal court concluded that the insured's work was fully completed two months before the accident and that the equipment worked on had been put to its intended use, that the pertinent policy language was unambiguous, and that the insured was not liable under the circumstances.

The insured argued that, if the exclusion is applicable, coverage would be found within an exception for injuries arising out of "operations in connection with the transportation of property" or "the existence of tools, uninstalled equipment or abandoned or unused materials." The court found it clear that the first exception contemplated transportation during work performed by the insured and that the second applied to equipment brought on the premises for purposes of the insured's operations.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

(TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. TY COMPANY SERVICES, INC. Georgia Court of Appeals. N. A90A1923. November 29, 1990. CCH 1991 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 2996.)