holding that if there is more than one common meaning for a term, and the context does not clarify the intended meaning, the court should apply “the meaning most favorable to the policyholder”
How later courts described this case
- holding that if there is more than one common meaning for a term, and the context does not clarify the intended meaning, the court should apply “the meaning most favorable to the policyholder”
- explaining that if there is no ambiguity the court does not apply rules of construction
- noting that undefined terms should be given the “meaning most favorable to the insured which is consistent with the use of the term in ordinary speech”
- "Courts may not rewrite, through rules of construction, the unambiguous terms of an insurance contract."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bobbitt, C.J.,
dissenting.
The policy provides: “When two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each. ...” A separate premium was established and paid for a medical payments clause in respect of each of the two motor vehicles described in the policy. In my view, defendant’s liability is the same as if defendant had issued a separate policy on each motor vehicle. Hence, for the reasons stated by Campbell, J., in his opinion for the Court of Appeals and in accord with the weight of authority in other jurisdictions, I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Under the rule adopted by the majority, a person who owns two or more motor vehicles would do well to have each separately insured by the same of different companies.
SHARP, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.