Policy

Subscribe to Policy

A fundamental canon of construction used to interpret statutes and contracts is noscitur a sociis, which translates to “it is known by the company it keeps.”  In Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893), the United States Supreme Court explained that “the meaning of a term may be enlarged or restrained by reference to the object of the whole clause in which it is used.”  In other words, context is key.

Noscitur a sociis is often utilized when terms are used in a list, allowing words to draw meaning from the common elements of the list.  To take a simple example, the word “mustang” could have a different intended meaning when used with “ranger” and “explorer” (vehicles manufactured by Ford) than if used with “filly” and “mare” (horses).  Finding the common connection between words in a list is helpful in discerning meaning.

Insurance policies have special interpretive rules

An insurance policy is a special kind of contract, one where ambiguous insurance policy language must be interpreted in favor of insurance coverage for the policyholder.  Provisions that grant insurance coverage are read broadly, and exclusions to insurance coverage are construed narrowly.  In insurance law, noscitur a sociis is most often used to narrow the reach of exclusions, resolving contextual ambiguities in favor of finding coverage.  It can also be used appropriately to construe insuring agreements broadly and to identify multiple reasonable meanings of insurance policy language.  Noscitur a sociis should never be used to narrow insuring agreements or to expand exclusions by interpretation.

A provision can be ambiguous in context

Because insurance policies must be read as a whole, the doctrine of noscitur a sociis is an appropriate tool to identify an ambiguity in insurance policy language where a plain-meaning reading of isolated provisions could appear, at first blush, to lack ambiguity.

In Flagship Credit Corp. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 481 F. App’x 907, 910-12 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit considered whether statutory damages for violations of the Texas Business and Commercial Code constituted a “penalty” that fell within an exclusion of “fines, penalties or taxes imposed by law.”  The court determined that the word “penalties” gained meaning from the words “fines” and “taxes,” which are paid to the government.  While the definition of “penalty” could possibly extend to private settlements for civil wrongs of the type prohibited by the Texas Business and Commercial Code, in context, the terms “fines” and “taxes” made clear that the term “penalties” should be limited to payments to the government.

Likewise, in Hunters Ridge Condo. Ass’n v. Sherwood Crossing, LLC, 395 P.3d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 2017), the court used the doctrine of noscitur a sociis to determine that the word “condominium” was ambiguous in the context of a building being used for both residential and commercial purposes.  The other listed structures in the policy definition of “condominium”—“apartment” and “townhouse”—were residential in character, shedding “considerable light” on how a purchaser of insurance would interpret the term “condominium.”  Accordingly, the court limited the exclusion to wholly residential structures.Continue Reading Reading insurance policies: context is key

When acquiring another entity, many companies purchase representations and warranties (R&W) insurance to cover losses due to breaches of representations and warranties in purchase agreements. These R&W policies may apply in excess of a seller indemnity or, if the acquired entity has been resold, there may be separate lines of coverage for multiple acquisition agreements that apply to one breach. So, what happens after the deal closes and the purchaser discovers a breach?

  •  R&W policies cover both first-party and third-party claims

First-party claims involve issues that are discovered by the buyer after the closing that result in losses. Examples of such breaches include:
• An audit of a company’s records revealing financial or reporting issues.
• The company’s manufacturing equipment not performing to the standards warranted.
• Relations with customers not being as warranted or the buyer discovering breaches of contracts.

Third-party claims arise when a third party makes a demand or files suit against the company. For example, after closing, the company is served with a customer complaint alleging breach of contract and inference with business relations. A review of the company’s files indicates that prior to the sale, the sellers had been notified by the customer of its potential claim but did not disclose it to the buyer. This may be a breach of representations regarding contracts and litigation or claims. Another example of a third-party claim is a government civil or criminal investigation into the company.

Best practices: After a deal closes, calendar any dates for releases of escrows or limitations periods. Have periodic check-ins, three to six months prior to the calendared date, to determine whether there are any breaches that may result in a covered loss.Continue Reading Representations and warranties insurance: I have a breach; what’s next?

An often-overlooked 2020 New York federal court decision allows policyholders to potentially recover attorneys’ fees when they bring a declaratory judgment action against an insurance company that has made litigation inevitable by resisting its duty to defend. In Houston Casualty Company v. Prosight Specialty Insurance Company, 462 F. Supp. 3d 443, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that an insurance company’s duty to defend obliges it to pay for attorneys’ fees and costs that an additional insured incurred in attempting to establish the duty to defend at the time the insurance company resisted such a duty.

The Houston Casualty Company case concerned an underlying lawsuit brought against New York University Hospitals Center (NYUHC) by an individual who was injured on its premises. The individual was injured due to a mis-leveled elevator maintained by a New York corporation, Nouveau. NYUHC brought a third-party complaint against Nouveau, as it had agreed to hold NYUHC harmless for any claims or liabilities arising out of the maintenance and repair of elevators on NYUHC’s property.

Houston Casualty Company (HCC) issued a general liability policy to the injured individual’s employer and HCC provided a defense to NYUHC and the construction company on the site, but HCC asserted that the primary obligation to defend these lawsuits belonged to Nouveau’s general liability insurance company, New York Marine (Note: New York Marine was named incorrectly by the plaintiff, HCC, as Prosight in the case). HCC sought declaratory judgments as to NYUHC’s additional insured status; New York Marine’s duty to defend and indemnify NYUHC; and HCC’s entitlement to reimbursement for all amounts paid by HCC, including attorneys’ fees, for the defense of the underlying action. These questions were resolved by agreement of the parties, and New York Marine conceded it had a duty to defend. However, the district court considered one unresolved issue regarding “whether NYUHC is entitled to recover, from New York Marine, the fees and expenses it incurred in attempting, successfully, to establish New York Marine’s duty to defend NYUHC in the consolidated [underlying] lawsuits.” Id. at 449.Continue Reading New York’s exception allowing attorney’s fees for policyholders

1. Representations and Warranties insurance has quickly risen to become a standard topic of discussion in many merger and acquisitions transaction negotiations.

2. Representations and Warranties Insurance is not a new product – but until recently its use has been limited because of prohibitive premium pricing and buyer concerns as to whether insurers would actually pay on claims. The insurance market is working to bring prices down and establish a payment history.
Continue Reading Top Ten Things to Know about Representations and Warranties Insurance

In life, sometimes even the law imitates art. As if copied straight out of the script of “Catch Me If You Can,” the U.S. District Court in South Carolina issued a ruling on October 21, 2014 in which it held that despite a false application for professional liability insurance submitted by an applicant pretending to be a doctor, the insurance afforded to the company and other doctors and nurses identified as named insureds under the policy remained in force and was not void ab initio as to the innocent co-insureds.
Continue Reading Catch Me If You Can: Fake Doctor’s Application Voids Coverage For Himself But Not For Innocent Co-Insureds

The evolving market for cyberliability insurance coverage reveals significant differences in the scope of coverage afforded under available policies. A coverage gap that may exist under some policies is for insider cyber attacks. While external attacks receive substantial news coverage, a recent study finds that businesses may be far less equipped to stave off attacks involving insiders: employees, vendors, suppliers and others who may have authorized access to critical or sensitive data.
Continue Reading Beware Of Gaps In Your Cyber Risk Policy – Are You Covered In the Event of an Insider Attack or Data Breach?

The insurance industry reacts not only to real losses, but it reacts with equal concern to perceived risks, particularly where those perceived risks could, at least in theory, amount to significant financial loss for policyholders and/or insurers. The Ebola “crisis” is the latest example of the insurance market reacting to a perceived risk that may never amount to an actual insurable loss.
Continue Reading Perception versus Reality: ACE Adds an Ebola Exclusion Just in Case