The rules of construction require the court to consider the policy as a whole, to give effect to each provision, and to interpret each provision to harmonize with each other. Additionally, a court should avoid an interpretation of a contract that renders portions of the language of the contract meaningless.
“[I]t is a cardinal rule of contract construction that a court should, if possible, construe a contract so as not to render any of its provisions meaningless and in a manner that gives effect to all of the contractual terms.” Pomerance, 288 Ga. App. at 494, 654 S.E.2d at 641.
A court may not construe an insurance policy in a way that renders a provision superfluous. York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., 273 Ga. 710, 712, 544 S.E.2d 156, 157 (2001). This Court “must consider [the policy] as a whole, give effect to each provision, and interpret each provision to harmonize with each other.” S. Trust Ins. Co. v. Dr. T’s Nature Products Co., 261 Ga. App. 806, 807, 584 S.E.2d 34, 35-36 (2003).