Court Opinion

ID: 9747256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:06:03.695781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:21.796507
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting:
Since the trial court adjudicated this case on a different automobile insurance policy exclusion than the one in force, I do not believe this case is properly before us and would remand. The appellant before the lower court claimed that the policy in force contained the following medical payments coverage exclusion:
We do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any person for bodily injury:
2. sustained while occupying your covered auto when it is being used to carry persons or property for a fee. This exclusion does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.
*393The appellee stated the policy in force contained the following medical coverage exclusion:
6. There is no coverage for use by any insured of any vehicle to carry persons or property for a fee. However, shared-expense car pools will not be considered carrying persons for a fee.
The trial court adjudicated this matter based solely on the appellee’s version of the exclusion language, and made no mention that there existed a disagreement as to the applicable exclusion language. On appeal, both sides now agree that the exclusion in the policy reads as the appellant has averred. Given that the trial court has not ruled on the policy exclusion actually in force, I would remand so we may have the benefit of the court’s analysis.1

. A remand would not necessarily be a fruitless exercise, as I find the argument significantly stronger that the appellant’s version of the exclusion militates in favor of his position.