policy, the parties vigorously disputed at trial the amount of damages, if any, that RM Kids sustained due to the title defect. Indeed, the primary focus of the trial, because of its implications as to both liability and damages, was the dispute as to whether and to what extent the alleged title defects, indicated by Exhibit C, diminished the subject property’s market value. And both this Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia have taken the position that “when on entering upon trial the insurer disputes the amount of loss claimed by the insured, interest o (774 SE2d 216) (2015) (punctuation omitted). 37 Id. at 454-55 (punctuation omitted). 38 Id. at 455. 39 Doss & Assoc., 325 Ga. App. at 461 (4). 40 Int’l Indem. Co. v. Collins, 258 Ga. 9 Ga. App. 54, 58 (2) (576 SE2d 38) (2002) (<HOLDING>). 46 Estate of Callaway v. Garner, 297 Ga. 52,
holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to county on monell claim where plaintiff presented no evidence that similar conduct occurred in the past holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that trial court did not err holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for judgment in excess of policy limits holding that trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on badfaith claim because reasonable dispute existed as to whether policy covered insureds claim