Court Opinion

ID: 9767178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:12:04.613684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.265421
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the majority is *407unnecessarily extending Collister,1 While his dissenting opinion in Collister creates no precedent and cannot be cited as authority, the majority in the instant case are rewriting the contract and in this situation Justice Pomeroy’s words are aptly written in Collister as follows: “It is not the function of a court to rewrite express and unambiguous terms in a contract to comport with what that court might deem a fairer result in a particular situation ____ This presumably elementary aspect of the law of contracts is not changed because the contract pertains to insurance.” Collister, 479 Pa. at 604, 388 A.2d 1346.

. Collister v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 479 Pa. 579, 388 A.2d 1346 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 55 (1979).