Court Opinion

ID: 9766771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:58:16.191069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:25.906211
License: Public Domain

MATHERNE, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully disagree with the Opinion of the majority in this cause. The majority Opinion rests upon a finding of ambiguity in the policy of insurance, which finding appears unwarranted.
Prom the entire policy, and particularly those parts thereof as quoted in the majority Opinion, the intention of the parties to the contract of insurance, as deduced from the terms thereof, was that if the complainant became totally disabled he was insured to receive a monthly income benefit in an amount equal to 60% of his monthly wages. In order to accomplish this at the premium charged all benefits collectible by the complainant under Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation were to be added together and the difference between the sum of these and 60% of the complainant’s monthly wage would be paid monthly by the defendant insurer, provided the minimum amount for which the insurer would be liable would be $50.00 per month regardless of the amount received from the other sources. Por similar reasoning see: Williams v. Insurance Company of North America (1969) 150 Mont. 292, 434 P.2d 395.
The parties agreed on the basis above noted and the premium charged the complainant $7.29 every three *559months) was based upon the risks assumed under this contract and agreement. To allow the complainant to settle his Workmen’s Compensation claim in one lump sum amount and then not apply the amount collectible from Workmen’s Compensation to any month except the one month in which the complainant received the lump sum award, would be to write a different contract for the parties. This insistence by the complainant would result in the Court ordering the defendant to assume greater risks than it clearly contracted to assume, and would result in the complainant receiving benefits not contemplated by the parties nor contracted for in the policy of insurance.
Contracts of insurance of this nature are desirable and of great value to the individuals covered, as well as serving the public interest, wherein the working man for what appears to be a. reasonable premium can be insured to receive monthly 60% of his monthly wages in the event he is totally disabled. The entire plan had to be dependent upon the insurer receiving credit monthly for the benefits received by the worker from Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation. The Court should not by a strained and technical construction disrupt what otherwise is a clear, beneficial and desirable agreement between the contracting parties.
For the foregoing reasons I respectfully dissent.