Court Opinion

ID: 9855153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:20:20.127016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:42.265383
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
dissenting.
I would decline to follow the federal cases cited by the majority, Diamond Trans. Sys., Inc. v. Traveler’s Indemnity Co., 817 F. Supp. 710 (N.D. Ill. 1993) and Business Interiors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 751 F.2d 361 (10th Cir. 1984). Instead, I agree with the Minnesota Court of Appeals that “[t]he phrase ‘series of related acts’ is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation when determining whether an employee’s dishonest acts are subject to a single occurrence coverage limit, and is, therefore, ambiguous. The ambiguous language must be construed in favor of the insured, and the doctrine of reasonable expectations must be applied.” American Commerce Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co., 535 N.W.2d 365, 372 (Minn. App. 1995); see also Ins. Co. v. Const. Co., 303 N.C. 387, 279 S.E.2d 769 (1981) (holding that North Carolina follows the reasonable expectations doctrine, whereby an insurance contract is interpreted according to the reasonable expectations of the purchaser of insurance).
Accordingly, I would remand for a jury determination of what constitutes reasonable expectations of the insured in this matter.