Court Opinion

ID: 9696019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:33:49.317747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.998119
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Chidsey:
I agree with the majority that the disposition of this case depends upon the meaning to be given the word ‘•'war” in the policy of insurance involved, but I dis*270agree with their interpretation. The likelihood of death occurring and the consequent increase in the risk assumed by the insurer if an insured voluntarily or involuntarily engages in military service in time of war, is manifest. The exclusion or termination of liability of the insurer in such event is therefore founded upon good reason, readily understandable by both parties to the insurance contract. The greater likelihood of an insured’s death when engaged in military service in time of war exists whether the war is a declared or “constitutional” war, or an undeclared war. The reason for the exclusion applies equally in either instance. The word “war” used without limitation or restriction, in my opinion should be construed as the word would ordinarily be used and understood and calls for no technical construction. Certainly a major conflict between the armed forces of two nations under authority of their respective governments would be commonly regarded as war. I think that the present conflict in Korea is a war within the meaning of the exclusionary provisions of the policy, and therefore dissent from the view of the majority.