Opinion ID: 2518484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Because the phrase arising from the use or operation of an automobile is unambiguous, it has the same meaning regardless of whether the phrase appears in an automobile insurance coverage clause or a CGL policy exclusion.

Text: While the applicability of the phrase arising out of the ownership, maintenance, [or] use is not entirely clear in every case, the phrase itself is unambiguous. As this court stated in Fortune v. Wong, 68 Haw. 1, 11, 702 P.2d 299, 306 (1985): The homeowner's policy declared in unambiguous language that it did not apply to bodily injury arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by an insured. The complaint in the personal injury action charged that Ronald Wong drove a motor vehicle in negligent fashion, his negligence resulted in bodily injury, and his parents were liable for the damages. Inasmuch as a court cannot rewrite the contract of the parties, 12 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law (2d ed.) § 44A:2 (1981) (footnote omitted), we cannot say liability for Ronald Wong's negligence was within the intendment of the parties. (Emphasis added.) If the CGL automobile exclusion were ambiguous, this court would construe this phrase in favor of the insured; if this same ambiguous phrase also appeared in a coverage clause in an automobile policy, this court would still interpret this phrase in favor of the insured. Thus, if the phrase were ambiguous, this court could afford differing interpretations to the phrase depending on whether the phrase appeared in a coverage clause or an exclusionary clause. [7] However, because the phrase arising out of the ownership, maintenance, [or] use is unambiguous, this court need not interpret the phrase differently depending on whether the phrase appears in a coverage clause or an exclusionary clause. See Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd. v. Chief Clerk of First Circuit Court, 68 Haw. 336, 342, 713 P.2d 427, 431 (1986) (holding that the plain language of the insured's homeowner's policy excluded coverage for injuries arising out of an automobile accident); see also N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Ekstrom, 784 P.2d 320, 323 (Colo.1989) (declining to give the phrase arising out of different meanings depending on whether the phrase appeared in a coverage clause or an exclusionary clause). Therefore, this court may look to its interpretations of the phrase arising out of the ownership, maintenance, [or] use in the context of automobile insurance coverage clauses and apply these interpretations to the CGL automobile exclusion at issue in the instant case.