Resolving coverage disputes and interpreting policies requires applying both traditional principles of contract interpretation and unique insurance-related rules of construction about ambiguities, exclusions, reasonable expectations, unconscionable advantage, illusory coverage, duty of utmost good faith, and much more. Notwithstanding that many policies have standard language and phraseology, policyholders, courts, and insurers often have difficulty ascertaining a policy's plain meaning in a given factual or procedural context, leading to seemingly inconsistent outcomes and unpredictability.
Insurance policies are long, complex, and labyrinthine documents that may not have been precisely drafted for a variety of reasons. Coverage can turn on the meaning of a single word or phrase, perhaps located paragraphs or pages away from the main provision. Some words and phrases get debated and interpreted over and over: arising out of, because of, connected or related to, accident, any, an, of, and for are just a few examples. As courts tweak or modify interpreting policies, the law can evolve about what is or is not covered under particular language.
Listen as this accomplished panel of insurance coverage attorneys reviews the rules for policy interpretation, discusses frequently litigated issues in the policy language, and offers insights into whether the law is evolving with respect to these often-disputed provisions.
Speakers:
- Arthur R. Armstrong, Partner, Lowenstein Sandler LLP
- Nina E. Kallen, Owner, Attorney At Law
Time: 1 p.m. ET
*This event is open to the public but requires a registration fee.
