Opinion ID: 1194203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the reserve policy

Text: I am unable to agree with my colleagues' construction of the primary policy issued by Reserve to Pisciotta. The majority insists that Words used in an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to the plain meaning which a layman would ordinarily attach to them. ( Ante, p. 807.) Adopting such an interpretative approach, I conclude that Tyler was a member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured, and thus was excluded from coverage under the Reserve policy. Tyler lived with his mother, his brother, and his stepfather, the insured Pisciotta, and was fully supported by Pisciotta. In the words of the majority, the insured treated ( ante, p. 805) him as if he was a natural child. He lived in the same household as the insured, Pisciotta. The record before us strongly suggests that Pisciotta, his wife (Tyler's mother), and Tyler himself considered Tyler to be, in every sense, a member of Pisciotta's family. Within their several functions, I would expect that the federal census, Internal Revenue Service, public schools, Department of Motor Vehicles, the military draft, etc. would similarly treat Tyler as a member of Pisciotta's family. While the majority insists that Courts will not adopt a strained or absurd interpretation to create an ambiguity ( ante, p. 807), the consequences of its analysis are unusual. If the following persons, all living together in Pisciotta's household, were injured in the same boat accident, the majority would interpret his Reserve insurance coverage to exclude his wife, his son and an adopted son, but not to exclude his stepson. This seems to me to be a strained interpretation, and an artificial and unnatural result. It surely is not consistent with the reasonable coverage expectations of the insured or his family. In the absence of contrary evidence, there is no basis upon which to conclude that Pisciotta distinguished Tyler from the other members of his household, whom he also supported; and it is unreasonable to assume that Pisciotta contemplated a differential in insurance coverage among those members which, for example, would exclude his wife, but not her son. In short, I find no ambiguity upon which to predicate differential insurance exposure. I think that the average layman would interpret the plain meaning of the term family in the Reserve policy to include Tyler. Accordingly, he is among those expressly excluded from coverage.