Court Opinion

ID: 9726654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:02:29.745001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:29.606332
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). As are many words, in or out of context, "passenger” is arguably ambiguous.1
Roger J. Kinnavy was a person "carried or conveyed in an * * * airplane, * * * a wayfarer; traveler”,2 a "passer-by or through”.3
Kinnavy commuted by airplane between his office and his home in an airplane which he operated. Arguably, the exception in the policy insuring his life4 excludes from coverage only persons *528on an airplane primarily to provide means of passage to others and not a person who is on the airplane primarily as a means of traveling to the destination.
Nevertheless, I agree that this ambiguity cannot be "strictly construed against the insurer” by adoption of "the construction of which it is susceptible most favorable to the insured”.5
The Legislature has authorized life insurers to issue policies limiting liability with respect to death resulting from aviation "other than as a fare-paying passenger”.6 The exception in the policy insuring Kinnavy’s life is narrower than the authorized exception.
The rule that ambiguities will be resolved against the insurer applies in the construction of contracts of insurance, not legislation regulating the form of the contract. The apparent legislative purpose is to permit life insurers to except from coverage liability for death to the pilot and other crew members.
The language of the exception is consistent with the public policy of this state expressed in the legislation7 and should be construed consistent *529with that policy.

 See Warren v Continental Casualty Co, 248 SW2d 315 (Texas Civ App, 1952).

 Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged ed, 1966), p 1054.

 The Oxford Universal Dictionary (3d ed), p 1443.

 "IV. Exclusions: This contract does not cover death, injury or disablement:
"(d) While engaged in or taking part in aeronautics and/or aviation of any description or resulting from being in any aircraft except while a passenger in an aircraft previously tried, tested and approved”.

 Pietrantonio v Travelers Insurance Co of Hartford, Conn, 282 Mich 111, 116; 275 NW 786 (1937). See also Pawlicki v Hollenbeck, 250 Mich 38, 43; 229 NW 626 (1930); Francis v Scheper, 326 Mich 441, 448; 40 NW2d 214 (1949).

 "Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a life insurer from placing in its policies provisions limiting its liability with respect to:
"(1) Death resulting from aviation other than as a fare-paying passenger on a regularly scheduled route between definitely established airports.” MCLA 500.4042; MSA 24.14042.

 Recognizing "that resolving ambiguities against the insurer would sometimes be more favorable to the insured than would honoring reasonable expectations”, Professor Keeton asserts "that, even though not often expressed, there has always been an implicit understanding that ambiguities, which in most cases might be resolved in more than just one of two ways, would be resolved favorably to the insured’s claim only if a reasonable person in his position would have expected coverage”. Keeton, Insurance Law, § 6.3(a), p 352.
*529He states the following principle:
"The objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries regarding the terms of insurance contracts will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations.” Keeton, supra, p 351.
See also Keeton, Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions, Part One, 83 Harv L Rev 961 (1970), Part Two, 83 Harv L Rev 1281 (1970); Perlet, The Insurance Contract and the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectation, 6 The Forum 116 (1971); Squires, A Skeptical Look at the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectation, 6 The Forum 252 (1971); Young et al, Insurance Contract Interpretation: Issues and Trends, Issue No 625 Insurance L J 71 (1975); Note, The Role of Public Policy and Reasonable Expectations in Construing Insurance Contracts, 47 Temple L Q 748 (1974).
The doctrine of reasonable expectations has been recognized in the case law. C & J Fertilizer, Inc v Allied Mutual Insurance Co, 227 NW2d 169 (Iowa, 1975); Jones v Continental Casualty Co, 123 NJ Super 353; 303 A2d 91 (1973); Corgatelli v Globe Life & Accident Insurance Co, 96 Idaho 616; 533 P2d 737 (1975); INA Life Insurance Co v Brundin, 533 P2d 236 (Alas, 1975); Smith v Westland Life Insurance Co, 15 Cal 3d 111; 123 Cal Rptr 649; 539 P2d 433 (1975); Magulas v Travelers Insurance Co, 114 NH 704; 327 A2d 608 (1974); Nile Valley Cooperative Grain & Milling Co v Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Co, 187 Neb 720; 193 NW2d 752 (1972).