Court Opinion

ID: 9549304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:15:54.548756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:06.182626
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority in remanding the case for trial. I do not join in the decisions made upon issues concerning the admissibility of evidence, affirmative defenses and consumer protection. The trial court made no judgment as to these, only that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
The ultimate issue is the intent of the parties in forming the insurance contract. As was said in Continental Volvo, Inc. v. Ross, 17 Wn. app. 316, 317-18, 562 P.2d 1002 (1977):
The relationship between the parties to an insurance contract is a personal one. The intention of the insurer and the insured control the coverage provided, . . . and, as with other written contracts, that intention is to be determined from the language of the contract viewed against the setting in which it is formed.
(Citations omitted.) Accord, Witherspoon v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 86 Wn.2d 641, 650, 548 P.2d 302 (1976); Ames v. Baker, 68 Wn.2d 713, 717, 415 P.2d 74 (1966).
The majority in what must be called an advisory opinion upon contentions made by counsel in their briefs, drastically circumscribes the power of the trial court to adjudicate the controversy. This court should not presume to do that.
Reconsideration denied April 23,1980.