Majority at 51-52. In this case, however, the policy title is indicative of what the parties could have reasonably expected. In my view, such a position is simply untenable. In my view, the Majority's interpretation of the business automobile policy blurs the potential risk pool subject to coverage that is considered in determining insurance rates. By so doing, insurers are able to distribute the risks being insured against amongst the pool of similarly situated insureds.
Insurers can then set similar rates for the members of that group.
Specifically, the Majority's literal interpretation of the business automobile liability policy effectively destroys all limitations with respect to the vehicles subject to coverage under the policy. By so doing, the Majority has broadened beyond recognition the risk pool to which the insurer is obligated to provide coverage. Consequently, in my opinion, insurers will be forced to raise premium rates to the detriment of consumers in order to compensate for the broadened risk pool. For the reasons discussed above, I dissent from section III.C of the Majority's Opinion. In contrast, I agree with the majority with regard to Island's duty to defend pursuant to the business automobile liability policy inasmuch as the allegations in the underlying complaint give rise to the possibility of coverage.