Court Opinion

ID: 9527385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:13.577076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:46.354751
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice,
concurring specially.
The Chief Justice correctly interprets what the majority of this court held in Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870 (N.D.1975). I did not agree with that majority view in 1975 and I still believe it was wrong. Never-the-less, the law is expounded in majority opinions, *536not dissents. The legislature, I thought, should have taken corrective action after this court’s decision in 1975. It did not and as a consequence, we presume that it has concurred.
Why the liability insurance premiums have not been adjusted upward to cover the added exposure resulting from Hughes v. State Farm, I do not know. It would be difficult to argue that higher premiums are not justified.