Court Opinion

ID: 9521219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:00:42.422673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:26.701901
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI, dissenting: I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority that the exclusionary clause here involved is ambiguous, and I respectfully dissent. The exclusionary clause here in question provides that coverage does not extend “to any loss or claim arising out of the existence of” the insured’s highways and roads. The majority concludes that an action alleging the negligent maintenance of traffic control signals does not arise out of the existence of highways and roads within the meaning of the exclusionary clause. In my opinion, the plain meaning of the exclusionary clause dictates a contrary result. There is no need to engage in a construction of the clause, since its language is clear. The exclusionary clause should therefore be applied as written, the appellate court judgment should be reversed, and the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the insured’s declaratory judgment action should be affirmed. UNDERWOOD and RYAN, JJ., join in this dissent.