Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Law

O’CONNOR, Justice (Ret.),

dissenting:

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the damage at issue is not covered “vandalism” under the policy. See ante, Part 11(A)(2). I reach a different conclusion as to the construction of the building damage exception to the theft exclusion, what the majority terms “the most narrow and complex question” before the court. Id. at 579. For this reason, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.

As the majority recognizes, when a court interprets an insurance policy under Texas law, “[ajmbiguity is ‘liberally’ construed in favor of the insured.” Id.…