Legal Opinion · Dissent

Score v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1995No. Civ. 940394Published

1DissentMeschke, Justice

I respectfully dissent because I believe this insurance policy should be construed in Score’s favor.

First, the language of this policy connotes a coverage broader than the statute dictates. Generally, an insurer may offer more coverage than is required by statute. See Johnson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 193 Ill.App.3d 794, 140 Ill.Dec. 783, 550 N.E.2d 668, 673 (1990) (“The policy can provide coverage broader than the statute” and “any conflict between the statute and policy ought to be resolved to the benefit of the insured.”); Travelers Ins. Cos. v. Chandler, 569 So.2d 1337, 1338…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Stracener v. United Services Automobile Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Wood v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Continental Casualty Co. v. KinseyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Aid Insurance Services, Inc. v. GeigerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. SigmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API