Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Drown

Summary

The concurrence joins the majority's conclusions that the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association was not estopped by the insolvent insurer's preinsolvency misconduct and that the policy exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage. It separately emphasizes that, when an insurance provision is ambiguous, the parties must be allowed to present extrinsic evidence of their mutual intent before contra proferentem is applied. The concurrence characterizes contra proferentem as a tie-breaker to be used only after other means of determining intent have been exhausted.