Inside: Knowing the terms of your insurance policy is almost as important as having one in the first place
The only method to truly comprehend the scope of insurance coverage is to wade into the language of the contract.
December 20, 2013 at 03:00 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Nowhere is the English language more important in the legal world than in insurance contracts. The policies are written in an archaic manner, using numerous terms that are specially defined in the contract. On top of that, insurers usually tack on numerous endorsements to the policy that alter the terms of the original contract. In some instances, a policyholder will even see one endorsement modify the terms of another. Finally, court opinions also play a significant role in how insurance terms in policies are to be understood.
A recent opinion from the appellate court in New Jersey confirms the point: Insurance policies must be carefully reviewed and understood.
In William B. Kessler Memorial Hospital v. North River Insurance Co., the court sets out general rules of insurance contract interpretation that are always worth reviewing.
In this case, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought fines and payments from the trustees of the hospital for failure to pay employment taxes. The trustees sought a defense from North River Insurance with respect to the demand from the IRS. North River denied coverage and any duty to defend, which surely came as a surprise to these individuals and the hospital.
The trial court dismissed the case, and the appellate court agreed with the decision. Some pointers in interpreting insurance contracts are set forth in the court's decision and are generally applicable as rules throughout courts in the United States. These rules are:
- The plain and clear language of an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to the plain and ordinary meaning.
- Insurance contracts should be interpreted in a manner to fulfill the expectations of the parties to the agreement.
- Courts will interpret the policy as written and not attempt to rewrite a better policy than the one purchased by the policyholder.
- The policy will be read as a whole and not by sections in isolation in a manner that renders another section meaningless.
In the Kessler Hospital case, the insureds were seeking a defense even though the policy clearly excluded any coverage for fines, penalties and taxes. They attempted to obtain a defense by violating the general rule of construction that sections cannot be read in isolation from other parts of the policy. In this instance, the trustees were attempting to convert the insurance policy into one for unlimited legal services regardless of the exclusions and duty to indemnify.
What the insurance policy protects in the coverage agreement is only the beginning of understanding your contract. What the policy provides initially is often times substantially reduced by exclusions. Exclusions may be found in the main document or added to it in endorsements. Often times, the endorsements will modify language in the main contract, so the policyholder must carefully reconcile endorsements with the portion of the policy document it modifies.
Finally, in the wake of a claim, insurance policies contain various terms and conditions to follow in seeking coverage from the insurer. It is critical that policyholders know these aspects of the policy since they are often conditions precedent to being given coverage for the claim. There are thousands of cases where an insured would have had a covered claim, except it violated a condition in policy. Some of the most important terms and conditions are:
- Providing the insurance timely notice of the claim or loss.
- Not incurring expenses or legal fees without the insurer's prior permission.
- Settling a matter without the insurer's permission.
- Discussing the case or making admissions related to the claim.
- Failing to cooperate with the insurer's investigation into the loss.
- Prejudicing the insurer's subrogation rights.
In some states, the insurer does not have to suffer prejudice as a result of the insured violating a condition imposed by the policy. This fight is the most critical in providing notice of the loss or claim. Policyholders want to address the problem and get it resolved as quickly as possible. Then, they will address insurance.
The problem is that courts interpret deadlines for giving notice to the insurer, which are not often spelled out in the policy, as fairly short. For example, many policies will call for the policyholder to provide notice “as soon as practicable” or “immediately.” Even if an insured does not think a problem is an insured loss will actionable yet (i.e. no lawsuit has been filed yet), most policies require notice of possible losses and claims. It is better to error on the side of caution and always provide the insurer with notice of the incident.
It is vital for business policyholders of all sizes to understand the true nature of their insurance coverage. Simply understanding that a business has liability insurance that should defend and indemnify it from lawsuits, for example, is not enough. The only method to truly comprehend the scope of insurance coverage is to wade into the language of the contract. Whatever the coverage grants in the policy extends to the insured the exclusions, definitions and conditions sprinkled throughout the rest of the contract surely will limit.
Nowhere is the English language more important in the legal world than in insurance contracts. The policies are written in an archaic manner, using numerous terms that are specially defined in the contract. On top of that, insurers usually tack on numerous endorsements to the policy that alter the terms of the original contract. In some instances, a policyholder will even see one endorsement modify the terms of another. Finally, court opinions also play a significant role in how insurance terms in policies are to be understood.
A recent opinion from the appellate court in New Jersey confirms the point: Insurance policies must be carefully reviewed and understood.
In William B. Kessler Memorial Hospital v. North River Insurance Co., the court sets out general rules of insurance contract interpretation that are always worth reviewing.
In this case, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sought fines and payments from the trustees of the hospital for failure to pay employment taxes. The trustees sought a defense from North River Insurance with respect to the demand from the IRS. North River denied coverage and any duty to defend, which surely came as a surprise to these individuals and the hospital.
The trial court dismissed the case, and the appellate court agreed with the decision. Some pointers in interpreting insurance contracts are set forth in the court's decision and are generally applicable as rules throughout courts in the United States. These rules are:
- The plain and clear language of an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to the plain and ordinary meaning.
- Insurance contracts should be interpreted in a manner to fulfill the expectations of the parties to the agreement.
- Courts will interpret the policy as written and not attempt to rewrite a better policy than the one purchased by the policyholder.
- The policy will be read as a whole and not by sections in isolation in a manner that renders another section meaningless.
In the Kessler Hospital case, the insureds were seeking a defense even though the policy clearly excluded any coverage for fines, penalties and taxes. They attempted to obtain a defense by violating the general rule of construction that sections cannot be read in isolation from other parts of the policy. In this instance, the trustees were attempting to convert the insurance policy into one for unlimited legal services regardless of the exclusions and duty to indemnify.
What the insurance policy protects in the coverage agreement is only the beginning of understanding your contract. What the policy provides initially is often times substantially reduced by exclusions. Exclusions may be found in the main document or added to it in endorsements. Often times, the endorsements will modify language in the main contract, so the policyholder must carefully reconcile endorsements with the portion of the policy document it modifies.
Finally, in the wake of a claim, insurance policies contain various terms and conditions to follow in seeking coverage from the insurer. It is critical that policyholders know these aspects of the policy since they are often conditions precedent to being given coverage for the claim. There are thousands of cases where an insured would have had a covered claim, except it violated a condition in policy. Some of the most important terms and conditions are:
- Providing the insurance timely notice of the claim or loss.
- Not incurring expenses or legal fees without the insurer's prior permission.
- Settling a matter without the insurer's permission.
- Discussing the case or making admissions related to the claim.
- Failing to cooperate with the insurer's investigation into the loss.
- Prejudicing the insurer's subrogation rights.
In some states, the insurer does not have to suffer prejudice as a result of the insured violating a condition imposed by the policy. This fight is the most critical in providing notice of the loss or claim. Policyholders want to address the problem and get it resolved as quickly as possible. Then, they will address insurance.
The problem is that courts interpret deadlines for giving notice to the insurer, which are not often spelled out in the policy, as fairly short. For example, many policies will call for the policyholder to provide notice “as soon as practicable” or “immediately.” Even if an insured does not think a problem is an insured loss will actionable yet (i.e. no lawsuit has been filed yet), most policies require notice of possible losses and claims. It is better to error on the side of caution and always provide the insurer with notice of the incident.
It is vital for business policyholders of all sizes to understand the true nature of their insurance coverage. Simply understanding that a business has liability insurance that should defend and indemnify it from lawsuits, for example, is not enough. The only method to truly comprehend the scope of insurance coverage is to wade into the language of the contract. Whatever the coverage grants in the policy extends to the insured the exclusions, definitions and conditions sprinkled throughout the rest of the contract surely will limit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSemiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
3 minute readRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250