Court Opinion

ID: 9725686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:59:41.379338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:17.850521
License: Public Domain

Lanphier, L,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that a reasonable person would read the spousal clause and understand that the words “[American Life] WILL PAY the amount determined from the Schedule of Death Benefits per Unit as shown herein” to mean that American Life would pay whatever amount appears on the schedule of death benefits, multiplied by the number of units purchased. The amount shown on the schedule of death benefits is $71,500, and the number of units shown is 5.
Neither the amount of premiums paid nor the policy payoff limits or overrules the clear language contained within the policy. American Life argues that a reading of the policy in its entirety should govern over the plain language. The evidence presented showed that Dallas Kast completed a military application for insurance to American Life. The face amount specified on the policy was $100,000 for Dallas Kast. Also insured *705were the lives of his wife, Connie Kast, and his son, Dallas, Jr., under a rider to the policy. American Life argues that since Dallas Kast was insured for only $100,000, his wife could not reasonably be expected to be insured for $357,500 on a rider to his policy.
It is true that there is an argument that the sum of $357,500 exceeded the reasonable expectations of the beneficiaries of the policy; however, the plain language of insurance policies governs. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Bierschenk, 250 Neb. 146, 548 N.W.2d 322 (1996); Mendenhall v. Grantzinger, 249 Neb. 847, 546 N.W.2d 775 (1996); Leader Nat. Ins. v. American Hardware Ins., 249 Neb. 783, 545 N.W.2d 451 (1996).
A result adverse to either party should not cause us to rewrite the plain language of the policy. An adverse result occurs to one party in every insurance policy dispute. We have in the past applied the plain language of insurance policies which had adverse results for insureds. See, Coppi v. West Am. Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 1, 524 N.W.2d 804 (1994); Roth v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 220 Neb. 612, 371 N.W.2d 289 (1985). In the instant case, American Life could have written the language of its own policy to state different terms if it had wished to do so, but it may not in retrospect attempt to create a new contract. American Life could have worded the contract to state what it is arguing, that is, “[American Life] WELL PAY the amount determined from the Schedule of Death Benefits per Unit as shown herein [for a total of $71,500].” American Life did not do so.
The district court correctly stated, “[American Life] wishes the Court to interpret the policy of insurance in something other than the plain language and to, thereby, save it from itself. The Court declines this invitation and finds that [American Life] is bound by the language that it created.” I agree with the district court, and I therefore dissent.
White, C.J., and Fahrnbruch, J., join in this dissent.