Court Opinion

ID: 9689374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:29:14.810083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.388248
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would reverse. Grammatically, as Professor Anson’s report demonstrates, the exclusion is susceptible of two meanings and is, thus, ambiguous. The trial court’s conclusion, in granting summary judgment, that this analysis “extends well beyond plain and ordinary meaning” confers a surprising status on syntactically ungrammatical usage. If correct, it is a devastating indictment of our eustomaiy use of the language.
The insured successfully brought summary judgment against plaintiff on the ground that it owed no duty to him, his assailant not having been an employee of the bar. The *74order appealed from concerns only the duty to defend, i.e., the cost of the successful summary judgment motion on liability.
Since the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, and since the burden of proving an exclusion is on the insurer, and since there was no evidence to oppose the insured’s expert opinion evidence, I would reverse the summary judgment order as improvidently granted.