ADVERTISEMENT

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Insurance Law Blogs -> INSURANCE LAW NOTES

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Insurance Law

: INSURANCE LAW NOTES

Ambiguities MUST Favor Policyholders, Regardless of Extrinsic Evidence

By Richard T. Victoria

ADVERTISEMENTS

Though not exactly breaking news, it is well worth noting here that, late last year, the U.S. District Court for Western District of PA ruled, that ambiguities in insurance policies must be interpreted in favor of the policyholder and, consequently, that extrinsic evidence must not be considered in interpreting ambiguous policy provisions. Federal Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 2:05-cv-305 (W.D Pa. Nov. 22, 2006). While it has been argued that this is and must be the rule of law in PA, courts have not always taken this approach. See Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., No. 6 W.D. App. Docket, 1986 (Pa. December 16, 1986), Penn Twp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., Nos. 1071 Harrisburg, 1997, 1072 Harrisburg, 1997, 1073 Harrisburg, 1997 (Pa. Super. September 2, 1998); 12th St. Gym v. General Star Indem. Co., Nos. 95-1845, 95-1846 (3d Cir. August 28, 1996).

More on this here. Also, see my article in the March 20, 2007 issue of Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance, "Court Rules Ambiguities in Insurance Policies Favor Policyholders."

Full post as published by INSURANCE LAW NOTES on May 02, 2007 (boomark / email).

Lawsuits and Settlements

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.
allegedly failed to give policyholders discounted rates to which they were entitled.

Related Searches

US Law

#1 Online Legal Resource

Ask Legal Questions

US Law Directory

Class Action Lawsuits

Celebrity Justice

OJ Simpson

VIDEO: NYPD rendering first aid to Empire State Building shooter
On 08-25 at 15:46PM

Acute perpendicular parking #NYPD #NYFD
On 08-18 at 22:18PM

Parallel parking gone bad. Too much gas UES NYC
On 08-18 at 21:41PM

UES NYC
On 08-18 at 21:25PM

Twitter suspends journalist critical of broadcast partner's coverage on dubious grounds @guyadams #nbcfail #twitterfail
On 07-30 at 17:57PM

Model example of 1st Amendment suppression by the People of New York City's Michael Bloomberg #OWS #NYPD
On 07-12 at 21:07PM

AG Holder lackadaisical on Operation in our Sites domain name seizures & RIAA lobbied free speech suppression @dajaz1
On 06-08 at 22:44PM

Why is the Catholic Church going to court over Obama contraception policy? @NewYorker commentary
On 05-31 at 10:08AM

Monks sue Louisiana for right to sell caskets made from forrest destroyed by Katrina
On 05-31 at 07:47AM

Are the abortion ultrasound laws headed for the Supreme Court?
On 05-15 at 21:52PM

FOLLOW USLaw.com ON TWITTER

Custom Legal Documents

Your Blog Subscriptions Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc

Earn a law-related degree

Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.

Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

2nd Cir - Extrinsic evidence did not resolve ambiguities over rights.

Extrinsic evident to explain ambiguties in deed involving "stake patents" and "conditional line agreements": C.W. HOSKINS HEIRS V. BOGGS (SC 12/20/2007)

What Constitutes Extrinsic Evidence that Changes the Standard of Review

Superior Court: No Ambiguity, No Extrinsic Evidence, No Dice

Scruggs Nation, February 26: the update

At policyholders' expense

0.0032 secs (from cache 10/31/26 02:14:55)