Court Opinion

ID: 9620063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:37:36.280817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:12.733105
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: Concededly, this policy of insurance contains a restrictive “safe burglary” clause — just as many other types of policies contain restrictions. In this day and age a person gets just about what he pays for — whether it be insurance protection or anything else — -and that is what happened here. The clause in question is plain, clear and unambiguous, and, such being the case, should be enforced according to its terms in harmony with the universal rule pertaining to insurance contracts. In my opinion this court has no business making another contract for the parties — its function is to enforce the contract as made. (Knouse v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 163 Kan. 213, 216, 181 P. 2d 310; Blair v. Automobile Owners Safety Ins. Co., 178 Kan. 615, 290 P. 2d 1028.)
I would reverse the judgment.