Court Opinion

ID: 9674414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:28:17.177522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:27.509587
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
As I see it, the important question in this case is whether the words as used in the policy coverage of “a resident of the same household” means residents of the same household factually or residents of the same household legally. If the former, no coverage is provided, but, if the latter, then the insurer is liable as concluded by the majority opinion. The result is to be reached, of course, by interpreting the intent of the parties to the contract. If their intent is doubtful by reason of the choice of language used by the insurer, then the conclusion here is proper because ambiguities in policies are to be construed against the insurer.' For my part, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the language employed by the insurer is so clear and unequivocal as to evince an intention1 that the relatives for whom insurance is provided are only those relatives actually and factually living in the home of the named insured at the time of the accident.1 Because of this, I feel that the result reached is correct.
I respectfully concur.