Court Opinion

ID: 9844032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:56:36.942692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:26.958791
License: Public Domain

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(dissenting).
The policy here involved specifically states in Item 4 of the Declarations: “Unless otherwise stated herein: (a) the total number of private, farm and utility automobiles owned on the effective date of this policy does not exceed the number of such automobiles described in Item 5 * * In Item 5 only the Pontiac automobile is described. Moreover, the insured only paid a premium for the coverage of the Pontiac. The insured now takes the position that the Ford owned by his wife prior to his marriage and on the effective date of the policy is an “owned” automobile under the provisions of the policy in spite of the fact that the policy itself specifically states that only one car is owned.
As I view the matter, the intent of the parties is clearly disclosed by the terms of the policy itself; that is, only one car was insured—the Pontiac—, as it was declared to be the only car owned by the insured, and premiums were paid based on the •ownership of one car, not two.
*201That this was the intent is shown not only by the policy but by the testimony of the defendant insured himself, who stated that from the face of the policy he was aware of the fact that only the Pontiac was described and further that he was not financially able to insure the Ford.
In my opinion this policy shows no intent whatever to insure automobiles owned by the insured on the effective date of the policy and not declared by him to be so owned. The contrary interpretation of the majority here is, to say the least, unrealistic. After considering the “owned automobile” definition, Item 4 of the Declarations, and Condition 2 regarding notice to the insurer of change of automobile ownership during the policy period and the consequent premium adjustment, I think a reasonable interpretation of the intent is that all the automobiles declared to be owned by the insured were to be insured, and the declaration as to “owned automobiles” was to pertain only to the situation as it existed on the effective date of the policy and was not to be a continuing representation. In other words, if the declaration was true as of the effective date of the policy, there was coverage for all automobiles owned by the insured during the policy period regardless .of changes in ownership during that period, thus eliminating the old requirements for endorsement or notice to the company. Changes in ownership during the policy period would not affect coverage on owned automobiles but would necessitate notice of such ownership change so that the proper • premium adjustment could be made.
Boiled down further, all that could have been intended by these provisions of the policy was to provide automatic insurance coverage for newly acquired vehicles during the policy period.
The Rules of the Automobiles Casualty Manual for Louisiana, cited by the majority, cannot be decisive of the meaning of this contract. They are not a part of the contract of insurance, and the intent of the parties must be.determined by the contract itself.