Court Opinion

ID: 9443768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:30:12.6429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:35.920972
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the automobile involved in the accident was not covered by the policy, and that the judgment should be reversed.
It is a fundamental rule of construction that a written contract, if ambiguous, should be construed in accordance with the intention of the parties. Punctuation leading to a contrary result should be disregarded. Annotation, 3 A.L.R. 1062; Holmes v. Phenix Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 98 F. 240, 47 L.R.A. 308; Crawford v. Burke, 195 U.S. 176, 192, 25 S.Ct. 9, 49 L.Ed. 147. The Supreme Court said in Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. 41, 54, 9 L.Ed. 624: “Punctuation is a most fallible standard by which to interpret a writing; it may be resorted to when all other means fail; but the Court will first take the instrument by its four corners, in order to ascertain its true meaning; if that is apparent, on judicially inspecting the whole, the punctuation will not be suffered to change it.”
It seems clear that the purpose of the extended coverage provided by the so-called “drive other cars” clause was to extend the regular insurance purchased by an insured on his own individual car to casual driving of cars other than his own, but not to include other cars usually at hand the use of which would be more than casual. Obviously, the insurer is not insuring two cars for one premium, even though it may be slightly increased for the extended coverage. Accordingly, the intent of the exclusion clause, is to exclude other cars that will probably be used more than casually, which, according to experience well known to all of us, means excluding cars owned by a member of the household. See Annotation, 173 A.L.R. 901, 902.
The exclusion clause in the present policy, construed in accordance with the above principles, and eliminating inapplicable phrases, seems to plainly provide, with respect to the use of “any other automobile”: *826“This insuring agreement does not apply: (1) to any automobile owned by, * * * the named insured or a member of his household. * * *” The Cadillac automobile involved in the accident, was owned by a member of insured’s, household, and was so excluded from coverage. See Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co., D.C., 92 F. Supp. 620, 623.