Court Opinion

ID: 9698271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:46:21.838168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.814830
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Hoeeman, J.:
I cannot agree with the majority interpretation of the word “carrier”. It is true that words must be given their ordinary meaning. However, in determining the *424ordinary meaning of a word, one must consider it in the context in which it is used.
Thus, it is true, as the majority suggests, that the word carrier means “bearer” or “messenger”. The word carrier in another context, however, might also refer to an insurance company or to one who is spreading a communicable disease. For certain purposes, an elevator may be deemed a carrier. See Connelly v. Kaufmann and Baer Co., 349 Pa. 261, 37 A. 2d 125 (1944).
In deciding which of these ordinary and normal interpretations is applicable, however, one must consider the insurance policy as a whole. As Judge Montgomery, writing for this Court stated in Galvin v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 61, 64-65, 211 A. 2d 120, 122 (1965) : “In construing the policy it must be read in its entirety and the intention of the parties gathered from a consideration of the entire instrument. . . . The intention of the parties is paramount and in construing such a contract the court will adopt the interpretation which, under all of the circumstances of the case, ascribes the most reasonable, probable and natural intention of the parties, bearing in mind the objects manifestly to be accomplished. . . . Dictionary definitions of a word must give way to the use of the word in a policy.”
Viewing the policy as a whole, it is difficult to agree with the majority that the word “carrier” was intended to include any “bearer” or “messenger”. It would appear to me to have been used in its ordinary and natural meaning of a company engaged in the business of transporting goods for others. Thus, the policy makes repeated references to “railway express,” “armored car service,” “air express,” “customer parcel delivery service,” “parcel transportation service of railroads, waterborne or air carriers,” “passenger bus lines,” and “motor carriers.” It is these carriers, engaged in the com*425xnercial transportation of goods which would ordinarly be deemed “carriers” within the meaning of an insurance policy.
I cannot accept that a fair, construction of this policy would result in the interpretation of the word “carrier” to include a manufacturer’s representative merely because he carries jewelry from place to place. Accordingly, I would reverse judgment and enter judgment for the defendant.
Cercone, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.