Insurance
Apr. 17, 2015
New source for policy interpretation
State Courts of Appeal and even the state Supreme Court itself in various opinions are inconsistent in their approach to policy interpretation.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
Since 1990, insurance policy interpretation has focused upon three guideposts in seriatum. An excellent example is Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 49 Cal. 4th 315 (2010), where the state Supreme Court unanimously declared:
"'If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.' If the terms are ambiguous [i.e., susceptible of more than one reasonable construction], we interpret them to protect 'the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured.' Only if t...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In