Court Opinion

ID: 9514101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:23.046735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.819589
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 26] I dissented in Richard v. Fliflet, 370 N.W.2d 528 (N.D.1985). Id. at 536. Fliflet relied upon this Court’s decision in Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870 (N.D.1975). Notwith*642standing the dissents in each of those cases, the Legislature has not amended the applicable statutes and the majority opinion in those cases announce the law in this State. I therefore agree that this case must be remanded to determine the factual issues outlined in the opinion of the Court. If the factual issues result in a finding of fraud, material misrepresentation and concealment, the determination of whether a claimant is an innocent party may be more difficult when that party is also a family member. Nevertheless, under the current state of the law there is no difference between a family member and a total stranger insofar as the coverage un-
der the underinsured policy is concerned, nor is there any legal difference in determining whether or not a claimant is an innocent party.
[¶ 27] I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.
[¶ 28] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.