Court Opinion

ID: 9671620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:40:39.26878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.097821
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Giving full recognition to the holding in Ranzau, supra, by a seriously divided court, I do not feel that it is dispositive. Instead, a careful review of our statutes and those of Illinois reveal that they are, for all practical purposes, identical. In a well-reasoned opinion, Ull- - *373man v. Wolverine Insurance Company, 48 Ill.2d 1, 269 N.E.2d 295 (1970), the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld the identical provision which we have under review. I submit that the logic of that case has not been answered by Ranzau or by the majority opinion in this case. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire followed Ullman and reached the identical result. Hackman v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 110 N.H. 87, 261 A.2d 433 (1970).
Under the rationale of Ullman and Hackman, the plaintiff-appellee in our case could not prevail. I would not set aside a policy form approved by the Board of Insurance acting within its statutorily delegated authority. In this connection see remarks of Justice Walker dissenting in Ranzau (481 S.W.2d at p. 798) which I would follow in this instance.