Court Opinion

ID: 9627872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:57:38.019339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.110359
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
HOWARD, Presiding Judge.
In their motion for rehearing Kema Steel and Industrial Indemnity contend we made an erroneous and unfounded assumption that they were contending that the triggering occurrence was the filing of the complaint by Young. They claim that their contention was that the “occurrence” was the failure of Kema Steel to provide major medical health insurance to Mr. Young as promised. We quote directly from Industrial Indemnity’s answering brief:1
“II. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE YOUNGS CONSTITUTED ‘OCCURRENCES’ AS DEFINED BY THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY.”
We did not make an unfounded or erroneous assumption, but, assuming arguendo that we did, the failure to provide the alleged promised coverage was not an accident within the meaning of the policy even though it caused “emotional distress.” It was a breach of contract.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
HATHAWAY, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, J., concur.