Authored by David E. Wood and John L. Corbett When a consumer buys an insurance policy and an important limitation on coverage is not expressed clearly and conspicuously, many courts will not enforce that limitation. Some courts hold that provisions in a preprinted policy offered to the consumer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis – that is, a contract of adhesion – are unenforceable to the extent they contradict laws governing insurance or public policies established by the courts. Other courts conclude that where a policy excludes a certain risk by way of small print or technical language, the policy is considered ambiguous and construed against the drafter (the insurance company). Those rules of construction rest on the assumption that the parties to the insurance policy do not have equal bargaining power. The purpose of these rules is to level the playing field. If a particular policy term is specifically and mutually negotiated and drafted (e.g., manuscripted), a court interpreting it may be reluctant to construe the language automatically in favor of coverage. This is because the rules of construction designed to level the playing field when the carrier is the sole drafter of the policy may not be appropriate when both parties were involved in the drafting of particular policy terms. When a big company buys insurance, it often is represented by a team of insurance professionals to help identify the risks it faces and negotiate coverage that absorbs them. The insurance company has its own team of underwriters and marketing people tasked with deciding the scope of risk the carrier is willing to insure and setting the price for doing so. These teams may work together over a series of renewal periods. For example, the corporate policyholder might draft key policy provisions, with the language pored over by insurance professionals on both sides. Where both parties to the insurance contract share full responsibility for drafting policy language, the result may be a general, mutual understanding of the unique risks faced by the policyholder and the extent to which the insurer is willing to cover them. But what if, after the policy is bought and paid for, some risk arises that no one thought about during such negotiations? For example, what if there is a change in law that expands the policyholder’s covered liability? The change was not anticipated by any of the insurance professionals who negotiated the policy, yet the resulting increase in exposure falls squarely within its four corners. Insurance companies often deny claims in these circumstances because the parties never considered the possibility that an unexpected event might fundamentally change the carrier’s financial responsibility. This argument misses the fact that an insurance policy represents a compensated transfer of risk. Under this risk transfer, the carrier agrees to pay claims that fit within the contours of the policy, even if a claim represents a risk no one considered at the time the policy was issued. The risk of some undiscussed and unexpected loss coming within the scope of coverage is uniquely that of the insurance company, never the insured. This is because planning for the unexpected – for a price – is what the carrier does for a living. Every insurance contract, even manuscript policies, rests on this premise. Careful negotiation of the terms of an insurance policy is a good thing. Anything insurers and insureds can do to reduce uncertainty, prevent ambiguity, and make clear their expectations of each other helps avoid coverage disputes and preserve relationships. But in the event of an unanticipated risk that is not negotiated between a policyholder and the carrier, the fact that the parties never formed a mutual intent to cover it or not cover it should be irrelevant. The meeting of the minds that lies at the core of the bargain is the agreement to transfer the risk described in the policy, even if that risk changes in an unexpected way after formation of the contract.
RELATED ARTICLES
Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes – What Every Legal Department Should Know
March 11, 2022 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
Insurer-Paid Defense Costs: Can Insurers Get their Money Back?
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
The Pandemic vs. the Policyholder: COVID-19 and Business Interruption Coverage Claims
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims
Policyholders Hit With Ransomware Strike Insurance Coverage Oil in Indiana
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Insurance
Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes – What Every Legal Department Should Know
March 11, 2022 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
Insurer-Paid Defense Costs: Can Insurers Get their Money Back?
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
The Pandemic vs. the Policyholder: COVID-19 and Business Interruption Coverage Claims
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims
Policyholders Hit With Ransomware Strike Insurance Coverage Oil in Indiana
October 15, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Insurance
Another Favorable Ruling for California Policyholders Seeking Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
April 1, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Policy, Claims
Second Court Finds COVID‐19 Business Interruption Coverage Under Tribal First Policy
March 8, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance, Policy, Property Insurance
Pollution and Contamination Exclusions Don’t Warrant COVID-19 BI Claim Denials
February 22, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Claims, Policy
Tribal Property Insurance Found to Cover COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
January 25, 2021 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Property Insurance
Case Summaries and Insights
December 9, 2020 | Policyholder Protection
Privilege and Work Product in Insurance Coverage Disputes
December 7, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Insurance
The Tricky Business of Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions
March 13, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Insurance
Inadvertent Construction Defects Are an ‘Occurrence’ Under the CGL Insurance Policy
February 25, 2020 | Construction Law, Construction Defects, Insurance Coverage, Policyholder Protection, Commercial General Liability
After a Ransomware Attack, Does Property Insurance Cover Damaged Software and Hardware?
February 11, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Cyber Insurance, Policy, Data Security
The Duty to Cooperate Is Not a Duty to Conform
January 31, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Duty To Defend
Does Your CGL Policy Cover Consequential Damages?
November 11, 2019 | Construction Law, Insurance Coverage
Check Your Policy When an Insurer Says a Self-Insured Retention Applies to Its Duty to Defend
May 30, 2017 | Duty To Defend, Policyholder Protection
When is “Wrongful” Eviction Intentional and Therefore Not Covered?
June 2, 2016 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection
Chris Yetka Publishes Article on Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages in “The Brief”
November 7, 2014 | Claims, Policyholder Protection
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center