Court Opinion

ID: 9463620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:11:14.440355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:11.583799
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Chief Judge,
dissenting
The contract states that the company only insures against loss which arises out of the enumerated “specific hazards.” The problem is what the phrase “specific hazards” means. If the specific hazard here is injury while alighting from an automobile, the insurance company must be held liable, since Mrs. Hensley’s death arose from injuries she sustained while alighting from an automobile. On the other hand, if the specific hazard is alighting from an automobile, plaintiffs may not recover, since they have not demonstrated that their mother’s death stemmed from the fact that she was alighting from an automobile.
The word “hazard” itself offers little assistance, since it can mean either the risk created by an activity — here the risk is injury while alighting — or the activity which creates the risk — alighting. Webster’s New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1968). However, the contract read as a whole gives evidence that the insured should expect coverage only against risks created by virtue of the fact he engages in activities such as alighting from an automobile.
The contract says that the company insures against “loss ... resulting . .. from bodily injuries ... arising out of the specific hazards named ..If the specific hazard here were injury while alighting, the company would be deemed to insure against “loss . . . resulting . . . from bodily injuries . . . arising out of” injury while alighting. This reading of the contract, with its recapitulation of the word “injury”, strains common sense. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for the company to state that it will provide insurance against “loss . . . resulting . . . from bodily injuries . . . arising out of” alighting from an automobile.
*19The majority emphasize the fact that this is a casualty policy, and not a liability policy. But while a requirement of causal connection may be standard with liability policies, it is not out of place in the area of casualty insurance. A purchaser of insurance might very well want to insure only against such risk of accident as is created by virtue of engaging in a particular activity.
The majority also rely on the rule that insurance contracts, where ambiguous, are to be construed against the insurer. This rule, however, does not relieve the courts from giving a reasonable construction to insurance agreements.