Horne v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. , 109 N.M. 786 ( 1990 )

RANSOM, Justice

(dissenting).

I agree with the trial court that the inappropriate attachment of the family or individual rider to the business policy did not create an ambiguity as to whether an employee of the insured corporation would qualify as a family member, i.e., a household resident related by blood, marriage, or adoption. No argument is advanced that, aside from use of the term “family member,” there is evidence or reason to believe the parties meant for employees to be class-one insureds.