Court Opinion

ID: 9451557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:19:49.043569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:47.812840
License: Public Domain

GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
I concur in the result solely because it is clear to me that the policy provision in question is not ambiguous. In my view the majority opinion is anchored *77to a fallacious interpretation of the law by the assertion:
“For reasons given in the Paul Revere opinion, supra, this date decided, we hold the Continental Casualty decision, also supra, to be inapposite.”
For reasons stated in my dissent in Paul Revere I consider the majority’s interpretation of the law of Texas as expounded in the Continental Casualty case to be in error.