The purpose of UP’s brief was to educate the court on a wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.
Exclusions in a policy cannot be buried in the boilerplate verbiage of the grant of coverage. In this policy the promise of a defense under these circumstances was clear and invoked the insurer’s duty to defend.
Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer’s argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.
Polluter’s exclusion and use of extrinsic evidence to prove coverage
The Court held that the standard “contractual liability” exclusion found in the CGL policy essentially is a “breach of contract” exclusion applicable anytime a liability defense, e.g., statute of limitations or economic loss rule, eliminates a negligence cause of action, leaving only a breach of…
History is squarely on the side of policyholders fighting against over reaching and unreasonable applications of so-called absolute total pollution exclusions. United Policyholders urged the Court to ensure that representations made by insurance companies as to the meaning of exclusions when adopted remain the standard…