Appellant-insurer provided insurance coverage for a truck belonging to appellee-insured. Under the relevant terms of the “COVERAGE AGREEMENTS” of the policy, appellant agreed that it would “pay for loss to covered automobiles under Coverage: . . . E. COMBINED ADDITIONAL — caused by . . . (d) malicious mischief or vandalism . . . .” (Emphasis in original.) The engine of the truck developed problems. Appellee had the engine repaired and, asserting that the damage was the result of vandalism, filed a claim with appellant. When appellant did not pay the claim, appellee instituted the instant action, seeking payment for his claim, attorney fees, and bad faith penalties. The case was submitted to a jury and a verdict was returned for appellee, awarding him $7,883.01 under the policy, attorney fees, and bad faith penalties. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied and it appeals.
1. The policy contained the following provision: “LIMIT OF LIABILITY: The Limit of [appellant’s] liability for loss to any one covered automobile shall not exceed the least of the following amounts: (a) the actual cash value of such covered automobile, or if the loss is to a part thereof the actual cash value of such part, at the time of loss; or (b) what it would then cost to repair or replace such covered automobile or part thereof with other of like kind and quality, with deduction for depreciation . . . .” (Emphasis in original.) Appellant first contends that, under this “LIMIT OF LIABILITY” provision, the evidentiary burden was on appellee to prove which of the two alternatives was the lesser. Since, according to appellant’s view of the evidence, appellee did not meet this burden, it asserts on appeal that the verdict awarding $7,883.01 under the policy is not authorized.
As noted above, the relevant language contained in the “COVERAGE AGREEMENTS” of the policy purports to afford coverage “for loss” to appellee’s truck caused by vandalism. This language establishes appellant’s primary obligation under the policy, and the “LIMIT OF LIABILITY” provision has no bearing on appellee’s evidentiary burden regarding the amount of his recovery. “[U]nder the provisions of the policy now under consideration, the undertaking of the company to insure the owner against ‘actual loss or damage’ must be taken as the primary obligation, under which the measure of the liability would be the difference between the value of the property *174immediately before the injury and its value immediately afterwards ([cit.]); and the stipulation that the liability should not exceed the cost of repair or replacement must be construed as a subordinate provision, limiting or abating the primary liability, to be pleaded defensively if the insurer would diminish or limit the amount of recovery by reason thereof. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) U. S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Corbett, 35 Ga. App. 606, 611 (134 SE 336) (1926). See also Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 314 (7) (127 SE2d 454) (1962). “ ‘The burden of proof generally lies upon the party asserting or affirming a fact and to the existence of whose case or defense the proof of such fact is essential.’ [Cit.]” Commercial & Exchange Bank v. McDaniel, 147 Ga. App. 378, 379 (249 SE2d 97) (1978). Accordingly, the burden of proof with reference to the provisions of the “LIMIT OF LIABILITY” clause was on appellant and appellee had no evidentiary burden in that regard. See generally Rinzler v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 103 Ga. App. 201 (119 SE2d 31) (1961).
Accordingly, the only issue on appeal is whether the jury’s verdict is within the range of “any evidence” as to the amount of appellee’s “loss.” Our review of the transcript demonstrates that the jury’s verdict is within the range of appellee’s own testimony with regard to the amount of his “loss.” See generally Valley Coaches, Inc. v. Streett, 160 Ga. App. 25 (286 SE2d 313) (1981).
2. Appellant enumerates the general grounds as to the award of bad faith penalties and attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 33-4-6.
The burden was on appellee to prove appellant’s bad faith. Compare OCGA § 33-34-6. See Binns v. MARTA, 250 Ga. 847 (301 SE2d 877) (1983). Appellant’s defense to liability was, in essence, that the damage was not caused by the insured risk of vandalism but by inadequate maintenance and wear and tear. The issue then is whether there was “any evidence” “which would show that appellant’s reliance upon [this] defense was frivolous and unfounded and was asserted without reasonable and probable cause.” Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avery, 165 Ga. App. 703, 707 (302 SE2d 605) (1983). We have reviewed the transcript and find, for the reasons discussed in Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avery, supra át 707, that appellee “failed to meet his initial burden of producing ‘any’ evidence of appellant’s ‘bad faith’ refusal to pay the demand and, accordingly, the award of damages pursuant to OCGA § 33-4-6 ([cit.]) cannot stand. [Cit.]”
3. In its instructions to the jury, the trial court gave a charge on the general legal principles regarding recovery of damages in a contract case. See OCGA §§ 13-6-1, 13-6-2. The trial court then gave a charge which purported to establish the proper measure of damages specifically applicable in the instant suit on the insurance policy. On appeal, appellant asserts that it was error to give the general charge regarding damages in contract actions and that the trial court should *175have limited its instructions to the specific legal principles involved in the case. We find no error in giving instructions as to the general principles regarding the recovery of damages in a contract case where, as here, there is no contention that the proper measure of those damages was not also given. See generally Pollard v. Gammon, 63 Ga. App. 852, 862 (12 SE2d 624) (1940).
Decided December 5, 1984 Rehearing denied December 20, 1984 John R. Reinhardt, for appellant. James D. Hudson, for appellee.4. Appellant also enumerates as error the giving of an instruction regarding a possible recovery by appellee for mental anguish or emotional distress. After giving the charge which appellant enumerates as error, the trial court immediately informed the jury “that [appellee] is not seeking any damages for any alleged emotional distress but that would not be an item — that could not be recoverable in any event.” In view of the trial court’s corrective charge, it is clear that any possible error regarding a possible recovery for emotional distress in the instant case was rectified. See generally Perry v. State, 105 Ga. App. 776, 777 (5) (125 SE2d 666) (1962).
5. “ ‘The only error in the case being the award of “bad faith” [penalties and] attorney’s fees, the judgment is affirmed with direction that the portion thereof awarding [such penalties and] attorney’s fees be written off.’ [Cit.]” Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avery, supra at 707 (4).
Judgment affirmed with direction.
McMurray, C. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong, P. J., Sognier, Pope and Benham, JJ., concur. Deen, P. J., and Beasley, J., dissent.