“The fact that the policy rider and application are unambiguous in their provisions does not, by itself, defeat the reasonable expectations of the consumer.”
How later courts described this case
- “The fact that the policy rider and application are unambiguous in their provisions does not, by itself, defeat the reasonable expectations of the consumer.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN der VOORT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the majority is *407 unnecessarily extending Collister, 1 While his dissenting opinion in Collister creates no precedent and cannot be cited as authority, the majority in the instant case are rewriting the contract and in this situation Justice Pomeroy’s words are aptly written in Collister as follows: “It is not the function of a court to rewrite express and unambiguous terms in a contract to comport with what that court might deem a fairer result in a particular situation ____ This presumably elementary aspect of the law of contracts is not changed because the contract pertains to insurance.” Collister, 479 Pa. at 604, 388 A.2d 1346 .
. Collister v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 479 Pa. 579 , 388 A.2d 1346 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1089 , 99 S.Ct. 871 , 59 L.Ed.2d 55 (1979).