Court Opinion

ID: 9446355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:52:45.188368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.577584
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting), ing).
With deference to the views of my colleagues I respectfully dissent. I think the holding of the majority opinion does violence to the provision appearing as the last sentence in footnote 3:
“And provided also that in the event of any claim being made by anyone other than the owners of The Vessel [and/or property] hereby insured under this clause he shall not be entitled to recover in respect of any liability to which the Owners of the Vessel [and/or property] insured as such would not be subject * * *_>>
All agree that Nardelli is not an owner of this vessel; all agree that the owners are not personally liable for the dam*726age to the libellant. In such circumstances the policy says there can be no recovery on the policy in favor of Nar-delli. The conclusion of the court that this limiting provision means only part of what it clearly says seems to me to be an unwarranted rewriting of the policy in favor of Nardelli who, while enjoying its protection under certain circumstances, was not even a party to it.
I think the judgment of the trial court was correct and that it should be affirmed.