Court Opinion

ID: 9750578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:08:02.733589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:12.955518
License: Public Domain

WORK, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I agree the personal automobile policy issued by Farmers does not afford coverage for claims arising from Herrin’s accident. However, I conclude the analytical threshold of ambiguity is met here where I find two reasonable facial interpretations of the Exclusion No. 1 language. I do not find the majority’s sophisticated tautology analysis persuasive and note that it was not advanced by Farmers, which has consistently argued the exclusionary language is “explicit and clear” or, alternatively, that Herrin could not have reasonably expected coverage for this event.
Although I cannot accept the proposition that employing both the words “use” and “used” in Exclusion No. 1 saves its exclusionary language from ambiguity when read by persons (other than philologists) I concur that no reasonable insured would objectively expect coverage for the claim pursued under this personal automobile policy.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 17,1996, and appellánts’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 5, 1997. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.