Court Opinion

ID: 9546938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:38:15.705949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:03.245250
License: Public Domain

RANSOM, Chief Justice (specially concurring). I have found it difficult to see any ambiguity in the risk underwritten by Hole-in-One, namely, sixty shots on the ninth hole as carded by each player. Mr. Zamora carded his hole-in-one as the eighteenth hole while playing number nine the second time. However, I am persuaded that, as nongolfers and ordinary persons, my colleagues on this panel, along with the trial judge, reasonably could ascribe to and resolve ambiguity in the meaning of “shots” and “holes.” I, therefore, reluctantly concur.