Ploen v. Union Insurance

The majority determined Shelter’s provision was not an exhaustion clause and Union’s exhaustion clause was consistent with public policy. I concur because the majority correctly *878determined Shelter’s policy was not an exhaustion clause, but it failed to address the ambiguity of the provision. However, I also dissent because the majority failed to identify the ambiguity in Union’s exhaustion clause, failed to construe the provision against Union, and failed to determine the exhaustion clause was void as against public policy.

Shelter’s underinsured motorist policy provides:

[T]he limits of…