Insurance
Jul. 13, 2010
Clarity for Policy Interpretation?
All things considered, in California there is still no precise guideline for interpreting an insurance term.
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.
Recently, in Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 2010 DJDAR 9113, the California 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 interpretation, we interpret them to protect 'the objectively reasonable expectation of the insured.' Only if these rules do not resolve a claimed ambiguity do we resort to the rule that ambiguities are to be resolved again...
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