Court Opinion

ID: 9636406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:27:05.97009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:45.164713
License: Public Domain

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my judgment, the decision of the lower court should be affirmed. In Gladys Ching Pang v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, decided at the October, 1945 term of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, the court concluded that the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, did not constitute war so as to relieve an insurance company of liability under a similar exclusion clause. This is a well reasoned, exhaustive opinion, and. I agree with its reasoning. The gist of this opinion is adopted for the purpose of this dissent. In addition to what is said in that case, I desire to make the following observations.
It is, of course, recognized without exception that where ambiguity exists in words or terms of an insurance contract, such ambiguity is most strongly construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured. It is equally well recognized that a court may not and' should not create an imaginary ambiguity in order to construe a contract "against the company.
If the word “war” has but one meaning and is susceptible of exact definition so that the minds of reasonably intelligent men cannot differ as to its meaning, there is no occasion for the construction of the contract. It must, then, be given the one meaning which it has to men of such im telligence. But if, on the other hand, it has different meanings, or if what is war may have different meanings when considered in different settings, then there is ambiguity in the use of these terms in the contract, unless the sense in which they are used is clearly set out and defined.
“War” is a word of many meanings. It cannot be said that it has but a single meaning. Neither does what constitutes war between nations mean the same things at all times. So there are acts of war, or acts of aggression, which, while they may lead to war, do not constitute war themselves. So, also, there is war in the legal sense, and in the material sense. Legal war exists when there is an interruption of all pacific relations between nations and an authorized contestation of armed forces by the constitutional authority of the nations, while material war is evidenced by the use of armed forces by the parties. It is said that war “is not a mere contest of force, but must be an armed struggle carried on between two political bodies each of which exercises de facto authority over persons within a determinate territory, and its existence is determined by the authorized political department of the government.”1
In a legal sense, we are not and cannot be at war with another nation until Congress has declared war, either by a formal declaration of war or by an Act of Congress evidencing its consent to the waging of war, such as providing for the raising and equipping of armed forces, and authorizing the President to use them in combat with an aggressor nation. An act of aggression, whether large or small, by another nation, does not create a state of war until we accept the challenge in a way provided for under our Constitution. The President has power to resist acts of aggression, but he is powerless to declare war, go to war, or put us into war without the formal action of Congress expressed by some form of statutory enactment.
If we were at war with Japan during the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, we were likewise at war with Japan during the bombing of the Panay. The Panay incident is sought to be distinguished on the ground that it was unintentional on *267Japan’s part, and the result of an accident. That was the explanation Japan gave, and we chose to accept it, because we did not at 'that time want to go to war. There is no doubt now that the Panay incident was deliberate, and I doubt if our government officials misunderstood it at the time. If the Pearl Harbor incident constituted war, then we were at war with Mexico when our fleet bombarded Vera Cruz, and we were at war with Mexico when our armed forces invaded Mexico in pursuit of Villa. Certainly the attack on Vera Cruz was just as deliberate as the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was no accideut or misunderstanding in that attack. The gunfire from our warships was deliberately and intentionally directed against the property of a sovereign nation, and killed Mexican citizens and destroyed Mexican property. Everyone knows that for a number of years, even before we went to war with Japan, the Japanese and Russian forces in Manchuria made numerous attacks on each other, some lasting for days. Yet both nations chose to ignore them and refused to go to war. During all this time they maintained their diplomatic relations and carried on their ordinary peace-time activities. It will be recalled that for a long time after we were at war with Japan, we urged Russia to sever diplomatic relations with Japan and go to war against her, but that Russia refused, and declared war and went to war against Japan only during tlie closing months of the war. Certainly, all of these acts of war which the Russian and Japanese forces committed against each other were deliberate and intentional. It cannot, however, he contended seriously that Russia and Japan were at war during the time of each of these incidents, extending over a number of years, but were then immediately at peace again when the incident was over, and were at war again when the next incident occurred, because during all of this time they continued their diplomatic relations and considered themselves to be at peace. These illustrations could be multiplied manyfold, but they suffice to show the distinction and difference between acts of aggression, which may or may not lead to war, and war itself. The only difference between the Pearl Harbor incident and the Panay and Vera Cruz incidents is one of degree. Those incidents did not lead to war. While the incident at Pearl Harbor did lead to war, it was legally possible to avoid war, and war did not come until it was declared.
Neither is the risk assumed for loss from acts of aggression between the armed forces of nations as great as loss from war. An act of aggression or an act of war may be a single incident or a limited number of incidents. Acts of aggression also cover a shorter period of time and are not waged with the same intensity as battles in war. As a result, an insurance company might well be willing to assume such risks, but not be willing to assume the enormous loss resulting from a legally declared war.
It seems to me that the word “war” and what constitutes war is susceptible of different meanings and incapable of exact definition.- It follows that the sense in which these terms are used in the exclusion clause is ambiguous. While it may not be of legal significance, it is worthy of note on the question whether there is uncertainty in the mind of the company as to the ambiguity in the terms of the exclusion clause, that in another policy which we had occasion to consider in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 10 Cir., 158 F.2d 257, the language employed was entirely different. The language in that policy excluded loss from death resulting “ * * * from military or naval service in time of war; from a state of war, or insurrection.” This language is certainly broader than the language in the policy in question here, and does not have the same meaning.
When ambiguity once exists, our duty under the well recognized rule of construction is clear. We do not gaze into a crystal ball to try to place ourselves in the position of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract in order to attune our minds to theirs, to try and think their thoughts as to how they would consider such a subsequent act as Pearl Harbor. The rule is clear that in such a case, we adopt the meaning most beneficial to the insured, and construe the contract most *268favorably to him. So construed, the ruling should be that the policy excludes loss from death resulting from war, meaning a legal war, but covers loss for death resulting ■ from acts of aggression, whether they did or did not subsequently lead to war.
For- the above reasons, I respectfully dissent

 See 67 C.J., See. 1. on War.