Court Opinion

ID: 9727804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:39.751705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.203879
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion authored by Justice Levine. I believe she has properly analyzed the decisions of this court in that opinion. However, I write specially to note there would be some naivete involved if a reader were to conclude that this court views a complex contract of insurance as simply as it would any other contract. Our past opinions belie that conclusion. Thus, although I agree with Justice Levine’s observation that we construe an ambiguous contract against the insurance company only if the ambiguity cannot be explained by other rules of construction, the decisions of this court also reflect that the application of such rules must clearly indicate that the parties, particularly the insured, contemplated no coverage to escape the conclusion that dictates coverage if there is an ambiguity. For example, conclusions such as “If one interpretation of the policy language will impose liability on the insurer and the other will not, the interpretation favorable to the insured will be adopted” [Williams v. Mesen, 261 N.W.2d 401, 404 (N.D. 1977) ], indicate, at least to me, that insurance companies whose policies contain ambiguous provisions concerning coverage will need to clearly prove coverage was not intended by the parties to escape their obligation. I do not read the majority opinion as a deviation by this court from that position. The evidence was clear that the parties did not contemplate coverage of the pickup as a farm implement.
GIERKE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.