Court Opinion

ID: 9684888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:18:09.419098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:14.003623
License: Public Domain

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, dissenting. I would reverse because of the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury regarding ambiguity. I agree with appellant that the instruction was not warranted by the evidence. The policy provision that excluded from coverage loss caused “direcdy or indirectly by (a) frost or cold weather or (b) snow storm, tidal wave, high water or overflow, whether driven by wind or not” is clear, definite, and unconfusing. Appellees presented proof and argued that their loss resulted from hail, a named peril in their insurance policy. Appellant contended that their loss was caused by ice and snow. Obviously, the policy could not cover loss caused by hail and exclude hail. Unless one reasons that frost, cold weather, snow storm, tidal wave, high water, or overflow can be reasonably confused for hail, it would seem that no ambiguity existed in the policy language to justify the jury instruction.