Court Opinion

ID: 9696280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:43:37.250399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:20.649653
License: Public Domain

Duncan, J.,
dissenting in part. I find it impossible to sustain on a basis of the record certain of the special findings or rulings made by the Trial Court in granting the plaintiff’s requests, in particular its requests for rulings of law 14 and 15 which in effect called for a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and its requests for findings of fact 7, 21 and 22 as they relate to geographical limits. These errors must be considered to have affected or contributed to the ultimate ruling that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend the pending actions. I would order a new trial with respect to the obligation of the plaintiff under its policy, and accordingly dissent from so much of the foregoing opinion as relates thereto. I concur in the holding that the defendant insurer is obligated to provide coverage under both of its policies.