Hardin Bag Burlap v. Fidelity Guaranty Fire Corp.

When I subscribed to the view set forth in our original opinion, I did so because I had yielded to persuasion to the effect that there is ambiguity in the policy in that it is not expressly set forth therein that the so-called "Hazards not Covered" clause modifies the principal coverage of the policy which is against "Sprinkler Leakage."

I concede that except for this "Hazards not Covered" clause, the loss sustained would have been within the coverage of the policy which insures against "all direct loss and damage by sprinkler leakage * * *", but I attach much significance to the words which…