¶1concurring specially.
¶2The Chief Justice correctly interprets what the majority of this court held in Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870 (N.D.1975). I did not agree with that majority view in 1975 and I still believe it was wrong. Never-the-less, the law is expounded in majority opinions, *536not dissents. The legislature, I thought, should have taken corrective action after this court’s decision in 1975. It did not and as a consequence, we presume that it has concurred.
¶3Why the liability insurance premiums have not been adjusted upward to cover the added exposure resulting from Hughes v. State Farm, I do not know. It would be difficult to argue that higher premiums are not justified.