Insurance
Dec. 25, 2012
A good decision for reviewing parol evidence and policy Interpretation
Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America unanimously declared that the "existence of a material ambiguity in the terms of an insurance policy may not, of course, be determined in the abstract, or in isolation.
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.
Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 49 C4th 315 (2010), unanimously declared that the "existence of a material ambiguity in the terms of an insurance policy may not, of course, be determined in the abstract, or in isolation. The policy must be examined as a whole, and in context, to determine whether an ambiguity exists." Thus, although a term must be read in its "ordinary and popular sense," its intended function with reference to the policy as a whole must also be evaluated...
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