Insurance Policy Interpretation: Navigating Plain Meaning, Ambiguity, Special Rules Applicable to Exclusions, Extrinsic Evidence and Burden of Proof

Description

Insurance policies usually are drafted by insurers using standard form language, much of which has been interpreted by courts over many years. But it is a mistake to assume that seemingly minor differences in language do not change the meaning of otherwise similar provisions that have been interpreted before. To the contrary, insurance policies are contracts, and it is the language of the particular contract – construed under principles of contract interpretation – that controls. As numerous recent cases illustrate, coverage often turns on the meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Moreover, insurance policies are a unique breed of contracts, subject to special rules of construction. Applying these rules can be complex. For example, among the general rules of insurance policy interpretation is that the court should apply a policy provision’s plain and ordinary meaning. However, courts must give effect to all the words in a policy and cannot interpret it in a way that renders a word or provision “mere surplusage.” So what should a court do when one clear provision conflicts with another equally clear provision? To resolve such a conflict, courts employ special rules regarding ambiguity, interpretation of exclusions, and burden of proof as “tie breakers.”

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance practitioners reviews rules for interpreting insurance policy exclusions, how courts look at deciding plain meaning of policy language, what constitutes ambiguity and other factors in interpreting the scope of policy exclusions. The panel will present the coverage arguments from the perspectives of both the policyholder and the insurer.