Chmielewski v. Muraresku ( 1969 )

Dissenting Opinion by

Mb. Justice Robebts:

I dissent from the majority’s finding that the endorsement constitutes a “mere emphasizing of one exclusion.” I believe that the court below correctly decided that the endorsement rendered the policy at the least ambiguous, and that the ambiguity should be interpreted against the insurer. I would thus affirm the court below.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this dissent.