A majority of courts consider the contra proferentem doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The 'Sophisticated Insured' Defense
In certain cases, insurers have asserted two reasons for setting aside the contra proferentem doctrine: 1) the insured is a large, 'sophisticated' corporate entity which should not benefit from ambiguity in the policy when it had the bargaining power and/or expertise to modify the language; and 2) the insured actually participated in negotiating or drafting the policy and, therefore, should not benefit from ambiguity, when it is just as responsible as the insurer for any ambiguity that exists.
Insurers have invoked this 'sophisticated insured' defense frequently in the third-party insurance context, with mixed results. Compare, e.g., Eagle Leasing Corp. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 540 F.2d 1257, 1261 (5th Cir. 1976), with CPS Chemical Co., Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 536 A.2d 311, 318 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). The defense has been less common in the first-party context, although there is no particular reason to believe that courts would treat the sophisticated insured defense differently in this context. The first-party cases discussed below show that insurers have invoked the sophisticated insured defense in first-party cases not only to persuade the court to set aside the contra proferentem doctrine, but also to convince the court to construe notice and suit-limitation provisions strictly against the insured.
Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.