Court Opinion

ID: 9848700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:25:32.60922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:37.625271
License: Public Domain

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
The view expressed by Justice PEDER-SON seems to be that, as aerial spraying is a common practice among farmers today, when a farmer purchases a liability policy, he should be permitted to reasonably expect that such activity is covered by the policy unless he is informed to the contrary by the insured’s agent, notwithstanding that the policy excludes such coverage.
If this is to be the law, then those who sell insurance should be so informed; not by our court, but by the Legislature.
In the instant case, I believe that the trial judge’s conclusion as to liability, if not his reasoning, may be sustained on the basis of the ambiguity created by the use of the word recreational in the phrase “of any recreational motor vehicle or aircraft” in the “Top Brass” policy as follows:
“This Part shall not apply with respect to coverage (a):

“(b) to any liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use, including loading or unloading, of any recreational motor vehicle or aircraft, except recreational motor vehicle or aircraft for which coverage is provided by an underlying policy listed in Schedule A and then not for broader coverage than is provided by such insurance.”
In my view, an ordinary person purchasing a policy with such a provision might reasonably be misled to believe that only recreational activity was excluded from coverage.
I do not believe that the insurance company should benefit from the fact that the insured did not read the policy.
If the terms of the exclusion are ambiguous, they must be read in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
*674I agree with that part of Justice PEDER-SON’S opinion which reads:
“. . .it has been well established in North Dakota that any ambiguity or reasonable doubt as to the meaning of a policy is to be construed strictly against the insurer and in favor of the insured, and if language in a policy will support an interpretation which will impose liability on the insurer and one which will not, the former interpretation will be adopted. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Loeffler, 225 N.W.2d 290 (N.D.1974); Conlin v. Dakota Fire Insurance Company, 126 N.W.2d 421 (N.D.1964). Section 9-07-19, NDCC, provides in part:
“In cases of uncertainty not removed by the preceding rules, the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist. The promisor is presumed to be such party, . . ”
SAND and PAULSON, JJ., concur.