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
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.