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

Summary

Justice Canady agreed that the certified question should be answered affirmatively but disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the policy language was unambiguous. He reasoned that the terms "material" and "publication" have multiple ordinary meanings, making the coverage provision ambiguous, and that the insured's reasonable coverage-favoring interpretation therefore prevails. Justice Pariente, concurring in result only, likewise would have resolved the question through ambiguity and the rule construing ambiguous insurance provisions in favor of coverage.