Butler ex rel. Butler v. Stuyvesant Insurance

I completely concur but would go even further. The pertinent portion of the policy is quoted in the above opinion and no useful purpose will be served by repeating it here. A careful examination of that provision will, however, reveal that it is ambiguous on its face. It will be noted that the policy provision does not purport to exclude “coverage” or coverage for “injuries”. It merely purports to exclude “liability”. How one excludes liability is beyond my imagination. Further, the subject provision purports to exclude liability “in respect to minors”. Rhetorically one might ask: Does the…