State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. LaRoque

VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge,

dissenting.

In Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870, 885 (N.D.1975), a majority of this court said that a policy of insurance is an adhesion contract and for that reason concluded “it must be construed most strongly against the insurance company.” Calling the language that excluded coverage unambiguous and clear, this court, nevertheless, voided the exclusion for public policy reasons. That prompted me to dissent.

The majority in this case does not say that this insurance policy is an adhesion contract nor that public policy voids the clear…