Court Opinion

ID: 9753435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:14:19.761588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:36.543683
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
Although, as the majority points out, our case law is generally consistent with the “eight corners rule,” a/k/a the “four corners rale,” we have never, to the best of my knowledge, addressed the precise issue presented here. Mr. Stevens asks us to adopt the “factual exception” to that rule and “to require the insurer to provide a defense when it has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage.” Fitzpatrick v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 78 N.Y.2d 61, 571 N.Y.S.2d 672, 575 N.E.2d 90, 93 (1991). Because we have never considered or decided the question whether the so-called “factual exception” should be adopted, I do not believe that this case is controlled by M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971), in which we held, inter alia, that “no division *72of this court will overrule a prior decision of this court.”11 The Supreme Court’s language in Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 132-33, 65 S.Ct. 165, 89 L.Ed. 118 (1944) is instructive:
It is timely again to remind counsel that words of our opinions are to be read in the light of the facts of the case under discussion. To keep opinions within reasonable bounds precludes writing into them every limitation or variation which might be suggested by the circumstances of cases not before the Court. General expressions transposed to other facts are often misleading.
(Emphasis added); accord, Khiem v. United States, 612 A.2d 160, 164 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 1293, 122 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993).
Moreover, “[t]he rule of stare decisis is never properly invoked unless in the decision put forward as precedent the judicial mind has been applied to and passed upon the precise question.” Murphy v. McCloud, 650 A.2d 202, 205 (D.C.1994) (quoting Fletcher v. Scott, 201 Minn. 609, 277 N.W. 270, 272 (1938) (citations omitted)). In this jurisdiction, the “judicial mind” has never been applied to the issue presented by Mr. Stevens.. In my opinion, the division therefore has the authority to decide whether, like the New York Court of Appeals and a number of other courts, see maj. op. ante, at 69 and note 10, this court should temper the rigors of the “eight corners” rule where the insurer has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage. Fitzpatrick, supra, 571 N.Y.S.2d 672, 575 N.E.2d at 93-94.
On the merits, I would follow the decision in Fitzpatrick for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in that case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.12

. In Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 33-34 (D.C.1991), a division of this court adopted, without dissent, a limited "public policy" exception to the long-established "at-will” doctrine without any apparent concern that such a step should be taken only by the full court sitting en banc.

. Since my colleagues believe that the result that I reach may only be effected by a decision of the full court sitting en banc, the present case may warrant en banc consideration.