Legal Opinion · Dissent

Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 21, 2009No. 2008-053Published

1Dissent

Skoglund, J.,

¶25. dissenting. While I agree that the language of 23 V.S.A. § 941(a) is susceptible to the majority’s interpretation, because all other indications compel a contrary construction, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 26. As the majority recites, our “paramount goal” when construing a statute is to implement the will of the Legislature. Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727. “When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning expressed by that language.” Id. Indeed, in such situations, we view it as…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Tarrant v. Department of TaxesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  2. Colwell v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  3. Mass v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. In re Estate of CoteSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  5. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. CNA InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API