Court Opinion

ID: 9658265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:53:37.093959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.262948
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(dissenting). I believe that the endorsement served to nullify the operation of Exclusion (c). To me there is an ambiguity between the provisions of the policy and those of the endorsement that must be resolved by resort to rules of construction applied to the endorsement and its effect on the policy. The endorsement is inconsistent with the policy and since the endorsement was agreed to at a later time I would conclude that its provisions should prevail.1
If Westchester intended that the exclusion requiring the trailer to be used only with vehicles insured by Westchester was not to be abrogated by the endorsement, it could easily have made it clear by providing in the endorsement that it did nothing more than the appellant contends.
*110I would apply, as did the trial court, the well-established rule that where a provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous, it should be construed in favor of the insured.2
I would affirm.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Fairchild joins in this opinion.

 Britten v. Eau Claire (1952), 260 Wis. 382, 51 N. W. (2d) 30.

 Kaiser v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1956), 272 Wis. 527, 76 N. W. (2d) 311; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Underwriters (D. C. Wis. 1948), 80 Fed. Supp. 353, affirmed (1949), 177 Fed. (2d) 249; Rood v. Merchants Ins. Co. (1942), 240 Wis. 329, 3 N. W. (2d) 353, 3 N. W. (2d) 680; Patterson v. Natural Premium Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1898), 100 Wis. 118, 75 N. W. 980; Merritt v. Great Northern Life Ins. Co. (1940), 236 Wis. 1, 294 N. W. 26; Kopp v. Home Mut. Ins. Co. (1959), 6 Wis. (2d) 53, 94 N. W. (2d) 224; Schluckebier v. Arlington Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1959), 8 Wis. (2d) 480, 99 N. W. (2d) 705.