Opinion ID: 1851101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: end of hearing.

Text: Whether Holmes is covered by the policy is a question requiring considerations that go beyond the interpretation of the exclusionary clause. When the judge agreed to decide whether Holmes was covered, the issue had been presented to him by Mr. Fuller, attorney for Fidelity, as though the interpretation of the exclusionary clause would, by necessity, lead to a decision as to Holmes' personal coverage. While that would be true if the exclusionary clause had applied to the trailer, the converse is not necessarily true. When the judge agreed to decide the question, he also noted that I will say for the record, I am not familiar with the complaint and pleadings, or the evidence. You have all the depositions and I haven't; I don't know how he would be in it . . . . At the time of the hearing the issues surrounding the question were not clearly drawn. In his opinion the trial judge added: The Court makes known however, that if the attorneys for the parties will all join in a written request to this court formulating the issues concerning the Holmes request, that it will determine the issue requested by Holmes on the evidence here under consideration. Under this set of facts, the trial judge was not under any obligation to decide Holmes' personal coverage under the policy. The judgment is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED.