Insurance
Jan. 7, 2011
Different Standards for Environmental Cases?
A review of the state Supreme Court's multiple approaches to interpreting insurance policies in environmental disputes.
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.
In California insurance law, "ambiguity is king" once dominated (i.e., if the term is "ambiguous," the insurer loses). But an environment case, AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 807 (1990), applied Civil Code rules of contract interpretation with respect to construing insurance policies. Specifically, as invariably a question of law, a judge should follow, in sequence: "plain meaning"; if two meanings seem plausible, the "insured's objectively reasonable expectations"; and...
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