Court Opinion

ID: 9606456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:49:55.116796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:03.722264
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting.
I cannot join the majority opinion which, in a display of judicial sleight of hand, creates insurance coverage where none exists.
In clear, unambiguous language, the property damage endorsement in issue excludes coverage for “property while . . . below the ground surface in mining, tunneling or similar operations.” In *645my opinion, well drilling is a type of underground operation that is similar to mining and tunneling. Therefore, the activity in which the equipment was damaged fell within the type of operations unambiguously excluded from the policy.
I would construe the language of the insurance contract as it is written, not write a new agreement for the parties. I am not persuaded by the logic of the proposition, advanced by the majority, that merely because a “reasoned argument can be made either way” by lawyers for the parties on the meaning of the exclusion, an ambiguity is created. This appears to be bootstrapping in its purest form.
Consequently, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
THOMAS and WHITING, JJ., join in dissent.