Court Opinion

ID: 9862222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:04:09.619605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:29.375245
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: This case turns on the interpretation of an exclusion clause in a policy of insurance. The facts are simple. Plaintiffs alleged injury from carbon monoxide fumes escaping from a malfunctioning furnace. The insurance company denied coverage on the basis of policy language which excluded coverage for injury from the escape of pollutants. The language further defined pollutants as any gaseous irritant or contaminant including fumes. Choosing to override the clear language of the insurance contract, however, the majority purports to divine the unstated intent of the parties. With this analysis, coverage is found to be provided. What we have here is not a case of contract construction. It is, rather, a case of contract reconstruction. As such, it is thimblerigging pure and simple. It also indicates the depths to which a court will go to achieve a desired result. If any principle can be derived from this ruling, it is that words have no meaning. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.