holding that “loss by severance” was ambiguous and that a substantial severance could satisfy a policy when there was functional loss as if the limb had been severed completely from the body
How later courts described this case
- holding that “loss by severance” was ambiguous and that a substantial severance could satisfy a policy when there was functional loss as if the limb had been severed completely from the body
- stating the review standard applicable to factual findings and legal conclusions entered after a bench trial
- “In construing 3 the language of an insurance contract, the entire contract is to be construed together for the 4 purpose of giving force and effect to each clause.”
- construe entire insurance contract as a whole; construe as would average person purchasing insurance: practical and reasonable, rather than literal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. I adopt and approve all of the excellent opinion of the Court of Appeals, per Munson, J., 13 Wn. App. 323 , 534 P.2d 581 (1975).
I would add only a few brief comments. I, too, feel sorry for the plaintiff. He did, in fact, suffer a grievous injury and one that will seriously impair his activity for the remainder of his life. Sympathy, however, is not a proper basis for the determination of litigation. Only facts and law should be considered.
Here the relevant facts are that plaintiff did not lose both hands. His hands were not severed “at or above the wrists.”
The relevant law likewise is clear. An insurance policy is a contract. The courts may not rewrite a contract for the parties. Words are to be given their ordinary meaning. State ex rel. Seattle v. Seattle Elec. Co., 71 Wash. 213, 215 , 128 P. 220 (1912). In that case we said in part: “It is one of the first rules of statutory construction, applying to contracts as well, that words are to be taken in their common or ordinary meaning.”
While an insurance company prepares the policy (contract) and is responsible for the language therein, that is only to be considered if there is an ambiguity. Here there is no ambiguity. Insurance companies, too, have rights. Such a company has the same right that is possessed by any other contracting party to rely upon the plain language of its contract, and to rely that it can limit its liability by the plain language of its contract.
*439 I would affirm the Court of Appeals in reversing the trial court.
Hunter, J., concurs with Wright, J.