Court Opinion

ID: 9632268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:08:02.265415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:46.085442
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result reached by the majority on the ground that the contract can reasonably be read as ambiguous and, therefore, the policy terms are to be construed against the drafter. The basis for my conclusion is that an ambiguity exists between the operation of the provision as argued for by the insurer and the stated terms of the contract. This alone is sufficient ground on which to base a finding of ambiguity.
*527I do not join the majority opinion because I find much of its language to be overbroad and unnecessary to the result reached. There is no need for a shotgun when a rifle will do. Cf. Peterson v. Browning, 832 P.2d 1280, 1286 (Utah 1992).