The Federal Third Circuit's opinion in Download Meyer v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Co. (3d Cir. Case Nos. 09.4040, 09.4124, Opinion Filed May 26, 2011) PUBLIC ACCESS, also published as 2011 WL 2040857 (3d Cir. May 26, 2011)(authorized password required to access Westlaw) sets out and applies settled rules of Insurance Contract Interpretation under Pennsylvania Law. They are by and large the same rules that the majority of Courts in the United States follow and apply in cases of Insurance Contract Interpretation.
This case involved interpretation of the word, "or". The policy term in dispute, "Total Disability," was actually defined in the Policy at issue but the Policy Definition was itself the nub of contention.
From the observation that "[t]he burden of drafting with precision rests with the insurance company, the author of the policy," through examinations of what constitutes "ambiguity" in an Insurance Policy, to the judicial capacity under Pennsylvania Law to "also look to the dictionary definition" of a word or term, and when, the Third Circuit touched upon many important points of Insurance Policy Interpretation in this case. See Meyer v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 WL 2040857 at *7 - *8. The Third Circuit panel also pointed out that Pennsylvania Courts apparently treat statutory interpretation differently from contract interpretation, although the Court pointed out that in this case, which turned on the meaning of the word, "or," in a Policy Definition of all things, that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of that word in a statutory context was "instructive." Id. at *8.
Here, the Federal Appellate Court agreed with the District Judge that the Insured's interpretation of the Policy's "Total Disability" provision was reasonable even if there were other, also reasonable interpretations. "Further, under Pennsylvania law, in close cases, a court should resolve the meaning of insurance policy provisions in favor of coverage for the insured." Moreover, in the Insurance setting, a Statute mandating certain required Coverage, as here, cannot be restricted by an Insurance Policy provision (although Coverage can be expanded by an Insurance Policy Provision). Id. at *10.
Although the Federal Appellate and Trial Courts both agreed with the Insured's interpretation and concluded that Summary Judgment was thereby warranted in favor of the Insured, the Appellate Court also reversed the Trial Court's Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in this case.
This appeal was argued for CUNA by a well-respected Florida Attorney now practicing in Washington, D.C., Roland C. Goss, Esquire.
For a discussion of a different Insurance Policy Interpretation matter in Federal Court in Pennsylvania, but similarly involving Pennsylvania Insurance Interpretation Rules and also with statutory involvement, see Tort Talk, Category "Insurance Coverage," post of April 1,2011.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments