Court Opinion

ID: 9790916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:22.625105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.639137
License: Public Domain

Miller, C.J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion holding that the exclusionary clause of the policy is ambiguous. As the majority opinion points out, the majority of jurisdictions which have considered the clause have held it unambiguous. A unanimous opinion by three distinguished judges of our Court of Appeals so held. That the plaintiff has suffered grievous injuries is undisputed, and one cannot but sympathize with his plight. Those facts, however, do not justify a tortured reading of the clear language of the policy in order to impose liability on the health insurer which specifically excluded coverage for employment-connected injuries such as plaintiff sustained. I would affirm the Court of Appeals on the first issue.
McFarland, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.