Court Opinion

ID: 9666848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:28:52.183906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.983685
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(dissenting).
The language of the insurance policy is-precise and unambiguous. Hence, there is. no necessity for interpretation; the contract is the law between the parties and. should be enforced as written. Article-1901, Civil Code.
Exclusions (c) and (d) declare that the-policy does not cover injuries to an employee of the “insured” and the policy defines the word “insured”, when used unqualifiedly, to include the “named insured’” and also any person using the vehicle with the consent of the named insured. Thus, since plaintiff’s husband was an employee-of the named insured, liability for his death was excluded from coverage. To my mind, it is as simple as that and further comment is superfluous, except to say that I am-in full agreement with the views expressed' by the Court of Appeal, see 72 So.2d 353, and the many authorities which support its. opinion. See 127 A.L.R. 531 et seq.
I respectfully dissent.