Court Opinion

ID: 9446192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:48:55.083791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:33.863117
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. I think the holding of the court makes impossible a general exclusion provision in a fire insurance policy. Here, in plain unambiguous terms the policy stated — in printing, to be sure, but that only testifies to the generality of its effect — that unless “specifically waived” aircraft shall not be covered. Clearly, therefore, every term used to describe the covered property must be limited by that exclusion unless aircraft were specifically named. Here none was. I would reverse on the ground that the policy was plain and unambiguous on its face and the evidence required a judgment for the defendants.
Rehearing denied: TUTTLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.