Michael Penzer v. Transportation Insurance Company, Appellee — Pariente, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Pariente, concurring in result only, affirms that the certified question should be answered affirmatively because ambiguous insurance policy provisions are to be construed in favor of the insured. The opinion notes the established rule that ambiguities are resolved against the insurer and cites supporting case law. Justice Canady’s separate concurrence is also noted, which agrees with the result but disputes the majority’s finding that the policy language is unambiguous.