explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after courts apply canons of interpretation should policy language be construed against the insurer in a manner that favors coverage
How later courts described this case
- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after courts apply canons of interpretation should policy language be construed against the insurer in a manner that favors coverage
- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after court applies canons of interpretation should policy’s language be construed against insurer in manner that favors coverage.
- explaining that only if insurance policy remains ambiguous after courts apply canons of interpretation should policy’s language be construed against insurer in manner that favors coverage.
- admonishing that when construing a contract, courts must “read all parts . . . together” and “must be particularly wary of isolating from its surroundings or considering apart from other provisions a single phrase, sentence, or section”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,
delivered a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by SPECTOR, Justice.
I agree with the Court in most respects. But for many of the same reasons as the dissent, I believe that the insurance policy was ambiguous and, consequently, that the court of appeals was correct in affirming the trial court’s judgment that State Farm owed Terri the proceeds of the policy as a matter of law.
Therefore, I note my dissent to Part II of the Court’s opinion concerning the policy, while joining in Parts III, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion concerning mental anguish damages, preservation of error, and attorney’s fees. I would render judgment that Terri recover only the policy benefits, statutory attorney’s fees, and costs.