Court Opinion

ID: 9513816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:40:51.989135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:03.047493
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 19] I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it determines the questions raised in Decker’s original brief on appeal. I disagree with the final disposition.
[¶ 20] I would not go as far as the dissent appears to do in placing the entire responsibility on the court to interpret the insurance contract as a whole and enforce it if there is coverage, notwithstanding the issues raised by the parties. But, in this instance, I agree with the dissent to the extent that the issue of the timing of the events under the terms of the policy is so elementary to the issue of coverage that the court should consider the matter even where, as here, the precise argument was not made until the reply brief was filed. Although that procedure might appear to allow an appellant to ignore the appellate rules and case law governing appellate procedure, the court should be in a position to determine when the issue is legitimate and legitimately raised and when it is not.
[¶ 21] I also agree with the dissent insofar as it concludes there was coverage under the terms of the policy because the use upon which Farmers Union denied coverage took place prior to the term of the policy and not during the policy period.
[¶ 22] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.