Court Opinion

ID: 9848546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:22:11.133724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:23.443986
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
dissenting: With due respect for my erudite colleagues, I cannot join their quest for ambiguity in this case. Even though an insurance contract is a “prime example of an adhesion contract” it is not per se ambiguous but is entitled to a reasonable and common-sense interpretation. This principle was soundly expressed in Ferguson v. Phoenix Assurance Co., 189 Kan. 459, 370 P. 2d 379, in these words:
“It is a generally accepted rule that insurance policies are to be construed in favor of the insured and against the company. This rule, however, is to be invoked only where there exists rational grounds for construction of the policy. That is, the contract must contain provisions or language of doubtful, ambiguous or conflicting meaning, as gathered from a natural interpretation of its language. (Knouse v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 163 Kan. 213, 181 P. 2d 310; Sebal v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co., 144 Kan. 266, 58 P. 2d 1108; and Koehn v. Central National Ins. Co., 187 Kan. 192, 354 P. 2d 352.) If the language when given its everyday commonly accepted meaning is clear and specific in presenting the subject matter at hand, the objective to be accomplished, the burdens assumed, and the benefits to be enjoyed or received, then the terms of the policy cannot be said to be doubtful of meaning or conflicting in terms. Under these circumstances, courts are not at liberty to indulge in a construction that would give an unnatural meaning to the language in order to accomplish results that could not be shown to have been in the minds of the parties. . . .” (p.463.)
Similar sentiments were expressed by this writer in the dissenting opinion in Gowing v. Great Plains Mutual Ins. Co., 207 Kan. 78, 84, 483 P. 2d 1072:
“In this jurisdiction the rule has always been that an insurance contract, if not ambiguous, is to be enforced according to its terms and courts are not *523empowered to make another contract for the parties, their function being to enforce contracts as made. (Knouse v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 163 Kan. 213, 181 P. 2d 310; Braly v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 170 Kan. 531, 227 P. 2d 571; Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co., 204 Kan. 487, 464 P. 2d 253.) We have also declared that the language of an insurance policy is to he taken in its ordinary and popular sense, and a court should not search for ambiguities where the words used have a common and well understood meaning. (Kendall Plumbing, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 189 Kan. 528, 370 P. 2d 396.)”
The present policy is designated as an Automobile Policy, and it provides liability coverage with respect to the 1966 Buick Grand Sport two-door automobile named in the policy and other automobiles while being operated by the insured. The cotut points out but two instances among the myriad provisions, insuring agreements, exclusions and conditions contained in the policy where the term motor vehicle is used: Once in defining the named automobile as “the vehicle described in this policy”, which, concededly, is a Buiclc automobile — not a Buick motorcycle, and second, in providing that where two or more automobiles are insured, a motor vehicle and attached trailer shall be held to be one automobile — not one motorcycle — so far as limits of liability are concerned.
I think it nonsense to say that from this limited use of the term motor vehicle, that the words automobile and motor vehicle were used interchangeably throughout the policy, or that the contracting parties had in mind that when the insured might be riding his friends or neighbor’s motorcycle he would be operating an automobile. It may be granted that automobiles and motorcycles are motor vehicles, that they are both self-propelled vehicles, but this is not to say they are one and the same, or equal to each other. Many cases and legal authorities are cited by the appellant holding that motorcycles and automobiles are not legal equivalents.
The court cites language taken from Kansas Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Cool, 205 Kan. 567, 471 P. 2d 352, to the effect that generically the word automobile is sufficiently broad to include all forms of self-propelled vehicles. This observation, in my opinion, was not necessary to our disposition of that case and I doubt its accuracy if it was intended to imply that the term automobile includes a motorcycle as those terms are commonly understood and used. If an automobile is in law a generally inclusive term for self-propelled vehicles, as I understand the court now holds where an insurance policy like the one at bar is concerned, the term would naturally include a motor scooter, a motor-driven bicycle or a self-propelled *524wheel chair. I respectfully decline to follow a rule which would lead to absurdities.
Before closing this brief but sincere dissent I should point out my disagreement with the statement in the court’s opinion that "Normally the word automobile when used in the popular sense would exclude motor vehicles such as motorcycles, pickup trucks, station wagons and jeep type automobiles.” In my judgment, which I readily concede is not infallible, the word automobile would include, not exclude, station wagons and jeep type automobiles, and might even include pickup' trucks, as well. At the very least, jeeps and station wagons and even pickup trucks would seem to come far closer to fitting the description of an automobile in the public mind than would a motorcycle.
For reasons assigned I respectfully dissent.
Kaul, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.