trailers into service, they suffered sudden and accidental physical injury in the form of cracking, buckling, and de-arching. Therefore, the ‘impaired property’ exclusion does not negate coverage in this case.” Although we have rejected the circuit court’s determination that the cracking of the trailers was the occurrence in this case, our determination that the failure of the trailers to haul concentrated loads is properly characterized as the occurrence does fit within the circuit court’s rationale. In this case, the failure by the trailers was both “sudden” and “accidental,” both in terms of the initial failure of particular trailers and in terms of the discovery that all of the Dorsey trailers were flawed. See Claussen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 259 Ga. 333, 380 S.E.2d 686 (1989)(<HOLDING>). See also Alabama Plating Co. v. United States
holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action holding that the word sudden in a pollutionexclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous ie was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean unexpected and unintended holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured