Opinion ID: 2130437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the term an insured is ambiguous

Text: The meaning of the indefinite article an is ambiguous under accepted rules of English grammar and usage. An is the indefinite article sometimes used in the place of a. [10] The term an insured is ambiguous according to a technical, as well as a common-sense, meaning of the term read in the context of the Allstate policy exclusion. This ambiguity is inherent in the use of the indefinite article an before a noun which creates a problem of interpretation since it gives the noun potentially two different meanings. The definition of the word an in Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed) demonstrates why this indefinite article (which is in the family of adjectives) has this effect: The word a has varying meanings and uses. A means one or any, but less emphatically than either. It may mean one where only one is intended, or it may mean any one of a great number. It is placed before nouns of the singular number, denoting an individual object or quality individualized, [yet] [t]he article a is not necessarily a singular term; it is often used in the sense of any and is then applied to more than one individual object ... [b]ut the meaning depends on context. [Citations omitted.] Given the above definition of the word an, it is clear that the Allstate intentional acts exclusionary clause is reasonably susceptible of two different meanings. [11] The term an insured is ambiguous in the context of the Allstate exclusion because it can be taken to mean either the named insured or all insureds. Thus, an ordinary layman of average intelligence could easily read the Allstate exclusion as follows: LOSSES WE COVER: We will pay sums arising from the same loss, which a named insured person becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage covered by this part of the policy. EXCLUSIONS: We do not cover bodily injury or property damage which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts of a named insured person (who commits those acts) or which is in fact intended by that named insured. In light of this ambiguity, I must dissent. [12] I have chosen not to follow the analyses of the cases cited in the lead opinion which contain language similar to the Allstate policy. See ante, pp 693-699, citing and discussing two cases, Allstate Ins Co v Condon, 198 Cal App 3d 148, 152; 243 Cal Rptr 623 (1988), and Allstate Ins Co v Gilbert, 852 F2d 449 (CA 9, 1988). These cases hold that the term an insured is unambiguous. The analysis in these two cases is simply not persuasive, and this Court is not required to follow it. [13] These courts simply have not adhered to the concept that an ambiguity must be found where a phrase has more than one plausible meaning when read according to accepted rules of English usage.