Court Opinion

ID: 9568823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:49.468644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:09.124544
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority’s holding but not entirely with the reasoning and the breadth thereof.
When the record and the statutory provision are scrutinized together, one need go no farther than the first proviso in the legal costs section. It says in (b.1): “In the event the insurer denies coverage. . . .”
Canal did not deny coverage. What it did was defend Hall under a reservation of rights in the tort action against him and bring a declaratory judgment action to judicially ascertain its legal obligations. It alleged that it “is in great doubt as to whether it is responsible to provide coverage to . . . Hall .... arising out of the . . . collision,” and it asked the court to “declare [its] duties and obligations ... if any” and to stay underlying civil actions until this question was answered.
This is not a denial of coverage.
Thus Hall does not even get out of the batter’s box in his quest for legal costs and there is no need to consider calls on other balls thrown.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this special concurrence.