an effort to ascertain the policy’s terms. Empire Banking, 498 S.E.2d at 284 (“Insured persons under an insurance policy are presumed to know its conditions if they intend to rely upon its benefits, or else they must find out those conditions.”) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). But, this assumes that the insured’s efforts to “find out those conditions” will not be frustrated by the actions of the insurer to deny the insured access to the policy itself. If the insurer acts to deny the insured access to the policy, and the policy itself is the source of the limitation period on which the insurer relies, the consequence of the insurer’s actions should be waiver of the limitation period. See Canales v. Wilson Southland Ins. Agency, 261 Ga.App. 529, 583 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2003) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); see also id. at 206 n. 20
holding when insured has failed to show circumstances attributable to the insurer that fostered coverage expectations or that an ordinary layperson would misunderstand the exclusion summary judgment against the insured is appropriate recognizing special circumstances exception recognizing exception to general rule that insured is charged with knowledge of the policy conditions if the evidence reflects a special relationship of trust or other unusual circumstances which would have prevented or excused the insured of his duty to exercise ordinary diligence holding that the policy language expected or intended by an insured person is unambiguous and requires a subjective intent on behalf of the insured holding that there is no common law duty of a carrier or its agents to advise an insured concerning the possible need for higher policy limits upon renewal of the policy absent a special relationship