Court Opinion

ID: 9631802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:50:41.587804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:01.796002
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: The court holds that whether a pickup truck is a “private passenger automobile” under the liability insurance policy here in question is ordinarily a question of fact, to be determined from evidence of its intended and actual use. This requires litigation in each and every case where a pickup truck is used under circumstances similar to those in the instant case. With this I cannot agree.
A policyholder should be able to read his policy and know whether he has insurance coverage under the circumstances indicated by the record. If he cannot ascertain whether he is covered while driving a pickup truck, as here, the policy is ambiguous. In this situation the policy is construed against the insurance company and liability is imposed.
In our complex society today courts simply* cannot construe insurance policies so that litigation is required to determine coverage in each instance under the circumstances here presented. An insurance company with a legal stalf at its disposal can write a contract of insurance in language clearly stating the coverage under the policy. The foregoing construction. of the policy here in question would compel insurance companies to clarify ambiguous provisions in their policies of insurance.
Fatzer, C. J., joins in the foregoing dissent.