Court Opinion

ID: 9622313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:15:22.938588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:52.133622
License: Public Domain

Kurtz, J.
(dissenting) — Because I agree with the reasoning stated in Cook v. Evanson, 83 Wn. App. 149, 920 P.2d 1223 (1996), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1016 (1997), and do not believe it is distinguishable, I respectfully dissent. The language of the exclusion is not ambiguous. A provision is ambiguous only if on its face it is susceptible to different, reasonable interpretations. Id. at 152. The language at issue here is not susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Because the policy language is clear, we should construe it as written and not create ambiguity.
Review granted at 137 Wn.2d 1032 (1999).