In researching the issue, "I looked all over the country and wasn't able to find a single case interpreting it," said the NowackHoward partner.

The plaintiff, Jesse Mainor, is represented by Mark Dietrichs and Melissa Kahren of Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers. They did not respond to requests for comment.

The dispute began in 2018 when a leak in a hot water tank at a unit at the Villa Sonoma at Perimeter Summit Condominiums damaged a neighboring unit belonging to plaintiff Jesse Mainor.

Mainor's unit suffered more than $10,000 in water damage to the ceiling, walls and floors in several rooms. A month later another leak erupted, causing nearly $4,500 in damage.

Mainor submitted claims to the association for repairs or payment, but it denied the claims.

The condo association had a coverage for certain water damage that carried a $10,000 deductible, which the insurer maintained would apply to each instance of reported damage.

Mainor sued the association in DeKalb County Superior Court, and both sides moved for summary judgment.

Last December, Judge Mark Anthony Scott ruled for Mainor, writing that the GCA required the association to carry policies "affording fire and extended coverage insurance for and in an amount consonant with the full insurable replacement cost, less deductibles, of all buildings and structures within the condominium."

It also requires that "in the event of damage to or destruction of any unit by casualty covered under insurance required to be maintained" under the Act, "the Association shall cause the unit to be restored."

"Under Georgia law, undefined words in contract are construed based on their usual and common meaning," wrote Scott, and "the commonly understood definition for 'casualty' includes sudden and unexpected damages, such as those caused by water or sudden water leaks, which were the causes of Plaintiff"s casualty losses."

"No definition of 'casualty' contains an exception for sudden and accidental water losses," Scott said, ruling that the association must pay for Mainor's repairs after he paid the relevant deductible (which Scott also said was impermissibly high at $10,000).

Writing for the appellate panel, Judge Brian Rickman said Scott substituted the dictionary's definition for a term that has a specific meaning in relation to insurance coverage.

"The association argues that 'fire and extended coverage' has a specific, well established meaning in the insurance context that does not include coverage for water leaks," wrote Rickman, writing with the concurrence of Judges Stephen Dillard and E. Trenton Brown III.

"We agree."

"Although not expressly defined in the statute, 'extended coverage' in the context of a fire insurance policy is a phrase connected with the insurance trade," Rickman said.

Georgia and the rest of the states rely on standard insurance forms for fire and other insurance, he said.

"There are also forms for what is called 'extended coverage,' dealing with windstorm, hail, aircraft, riot, vehicles, explosion and smoke," Rickman said, and the office of the state Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner defines extended fire coverage as covering "the additional perils of windstorm, hail, explosion, or riot, attending a strike, civil commotion, aircraft, vehicle and smoke."

"Accordingly, while the association did have a policy providing coverage for water damage, it was not required to by the Act," said Rickman. "Because the trial court erred in its conclusion on the threshold issue in this case, we reverse and remand this case" for both sides' summary motions to be reconsidered.

LoMonaco said he had been confident in his position, "but apparently nobody ever litigated what 'fire and extended coverage' means in any context. Now we have a Court of Appeals opinion that at least tells us that water is out."