dissenting.
While I concur with the majority’s opinion in Division 1 (Case No. A03A2418), I must respectfully dissent in Division 2 (Case No. A03A2419) because I believe that a jury issue remains concerning whether it was reasonable for Scott Rich to rely on Smith’s representation to Edwards that the Riches had guaranteed replacement coverage. As the majority explains, Smith was the agent for Glen Falls, and Edwards was Scott Rich’s agent. When Smith wrote to Edwards on May 24, 2001, he asserted unequivocally that “Mr. Rich has guaranteed replacement cost on his structure. Therefore,... we would honor the actual cost of repairs to that actual amount.” I realize that Scott Rich received the amended policy before the fire, and that it plainly and obviously stated the limits on replacement coverage. I also agree that Scott Rich should have read the new policy. However, the explicit statement by the agent of Glen Falls, who had at least apparent authority to “adjust” the loss, could be construed as a *84written, express, unequivocal change to the policy. In fact, the policy itself provides: “A waiver or change of any policy provision must be in writing from us.” Therefore, it appears that changes or waivers were contemplated by Glen Falls, and it is an issue of fact whether the letter from Smith could be considered a written change from Glen Falls, i.e., “from us.” See generally Ga. Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. Meyers, 249 Ga. App. 322, 324-325 (548 SE2d 67) (2001) (insurance contract construed most strongly against insurer and liberally in favor of insured to afford coverage).
Decided March 22, 2004 Reconsideration denied April 14, 2004 Fuller, Johnson & Farrell, Patrick J. Farrell, Jr., Michael J. Thomas, for appellant (case no. A03A2418). Young, Thagard, Hoffman, Scott & Smith, Daniel C. Hoffman, for appellants (case no. A03A2419). Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman, Stanley Karsman, Ashleigh R. Madison, for appellees.It is a jury question whether under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Scott Rich to rely on Smith’s representation to his agent. Accordingly, I would affirm the denial of summary judgment to Glen Falls. Damages would of course be limited to any additional damage to the house caused by its exposure to the elements between May 24, 2001, and approximately July 17, 2001, when Smith informed the Riches of the cap on their coverage.