Court Opinion

ID: 9653937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:59:18.425167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:03.942391
License: Public Domain

MACK, Circuit Judge
(concurring). I concur in the result, but on the ground last stated in Judge SWAN’S opinion.
The contract of insurance was clearly effectuated by the binder, which referred to and included the entire poliey. That contract not only was not intended to be altered by the certificate, but by the express terms of the closing note was intended to be in accordance with the binder, except in one respect expressly stated therein as well as in the certificate. Therefore the certificate, issued immediately on the receipt of the closing note, must be interpreted in the light of this history of the transaction. So interpreted, the entire poliey remains a part of the insurance contract.
It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider whether or not the House of Lords ease is to be distinguished from the New York cases on the difference in the exaet language used in the respective certificates, and, if not, then whether or not we should follow the House of Lords ease in its interpretation of the certificate, relevant terms of which are identical with those of the certificate in this ease.