Opinion ID: 2130437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the ambiguity in the term an insured can be seen by reading the contract as a whole

Text: I disagree with the majority for the additional reason that it fails to look at the insurance policy as a whole. [14] Allstate, as drafter of this policy, chose to clarify that the meaning of the term insured in its third exclusion should be understood in the plural sense. [15] The intentional acts exclusion that we must interpret, however, is not similarly clear in its meaning. [16] The insurer's failure to insert any before insured in the intentional acts exclusion indicates that the insurer intended any insured person and an insured to have different meanings. We must read the policy as a whole to determine the intent of the parties  at least insofar as it can be ascertained from the language of the contract. [17]