Court Opinion

ID: 9530692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:02:46.331503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:13.304377
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Chief Justice,
concurring specially:
I concur in that part of the Court’s opinion today which holds that an owner’s policy of vehicle liability insurance may exclude from coverage non-owned vehicles *918regularly available for use by the insured. I further agree that portions of our opinion in Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 111 Idaho 98, 721 P.2d 198 (1986), were dicta, and did not adequately recognize the statutory distinction in I.C. § 49-1521 between an owner’s policy and an operator’s policy, as does today’s opinion. However, the Court’s opinion in Dullenty did accurately analyze the uninsured motorist statutes and the uninsured motorist policy of insurance in that case, and therefore I cannot join today’s opinion which “deem[s] it necessary to disavow Dullenty and withdraw all precedential weight from Dullenty. ” Dullenty correctly interpreted the uninsured motorist statutes of the State of Idaho. Any shortcoming in the Dullenty opinion’s analysis of 49-1521 is dicta, and does not affect the balance of the Court’s opinion in that case.
JOHNSON, BOYLE and McDEVITT, JJ., concur.