On April 5, the Appellate Division handed down a precedential insurance coverage decision in Motil v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company, which provides a reminder of principles set forth in the case of Lehrhoff v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 271 N.J. Super. 340 (App. Div. 1994). The holding in Lehrhoff was that language in the declarations page of an insurance policy that raises an objectively reasonable expectation of coverage trumps clear language in the policy itself that denies such coverage. Although the declarations page is not a part of the insurance contract, it is about the insurance contract and the coverage afforded by the policy.

The content of the declarations page has significant importance in defining an insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage because a conscientious policy holder will more likely examine the declarations page to assure coverage and the amount of coverage, to determine if the policy is in accord with the policy holder’s understanding of the coverage purchased. If the insured’s reading of the declarations page of a policy would lead to an objectively reasonable expectation of coverage, despite language to the contrary in the body of the policy, clear coverage language in the declarations page will prevail because declarations located on the face sheet of the policy represent personalized information addressed to the insured and are, therefore, of signal import in setting an insured’s reasonable expectation of coverage. Boilerplate language thereafter which contradicts the declarations page will have no effect, unless the declarations page itself clearly so warns the insured.