Legal Opinion · Dissent

North Pacific Insurance v. Kelley

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided November 30, 2006No. 04-36110Published

1DissentBea, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. There is a triable issue of material fact on the question whether Kelley’s cattle were being “unloaded” within the meaning of the exclusion on Kelley’s farm liability policy. This issue of fact should be decided by a jury.

With due respect to the majority, not every provision of an insurance policy which excludes coverage must be interpreted in favor of the insured. First, we must attempt to interpret it accurately, consistent with canons of construction and the evidence adduced. Then, only if such efforts yield ambiguous or vague interpretations can we reach for the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. JeromeWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Colley v. Bi-State, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API