Court Opinion

ID: 4866272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 02:18:27.019276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:09.933307
License: Public Domain

POLEN, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the trial court correctly found an ambiguity in the insurance policy. That ambiguity arises from the language:
But if Windstorm or Hail results in a cause of loss other than rain, snow, sand or dust, and that resulting cause of loss is a Covered Cause of Loss, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by such Covered Cause of Loss. For example, if the Windstorm or Hail damages a heating system and fire results, the loss or damage attributable to the fire is covered subject to any other applicable policy provisions.
A crane falling on Chabad’s building is “a cause of loss other than rain, snow, sand or dust.” I would affirm summary judgment for appellee.