Court Opinion

ID: 9646582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:03:42.156244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:39.546417
License: Public Domain

MASSEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I believe the majority to have erred in its interpretation of that exclusionary clause which the trial court held to have precluded recovery.
I deem the provisions of the exclusionary clause unambiguous in and of -itself. If I believed it was ambiguous and subject to construction I would agree with the majority opinion. I also deem unambiguous the entire policy, considered with and as encompassing the provisions of the exclusionary clause. If I believed it possible through such a broadened consideration to hold such ambiguous and subject to construction I would agree with the majority opinion.
Since I can perceive neither patent nor latent ambiguity I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.