Court Opinion

ID: 9732729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:33:15.990971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:32.270342
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(concurring in result). I concur in the result reached by the majority because the record clearly shows that the plaintiff resolutely affirmed his ability to return to his supervisory employment. When asked if he could handle that job now he answered graphically: "[bjeautifully”.
*466Plaintiff was the victim of a not-too-unusual industrial employment squeeze. He was replaced by a man 17 years younger and offered reemployment at a much lower wage. He had other health problems besides his hernia-related difficulties.
If I assumed, arguendo, that the insurance contract provided coverage if plaintiff were "prevented from engaging in” gainful employment, I would vote to reverse to leave to the jury the question of whether such coverage applied. I believe the clear language of the contract precludes such an assumption. I further find ample evidence to support a conclusion by a jury or other factfinder that plaintiff is as a practical matter unemployable within his skills because of a combination of circumstances, including his age, his health problems, his previous surgeries and the economic climate. He is not disabled from doing the job for which he was best suited. He is prevented. Unfortunately however, the insurance coverage does not extend to such prevention.