HNRK Coverage Corner
On May 11, 2022, Justice Lebovits of the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision in Century Indemnity Company v. Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50388(U), holding that the doctrine of contra proferentem (construing ambiguous contract language against the drafter) “does not govern interpretation of insurance policies when the policyholder is sophisticated.”
A leading insurance treatise explains contra proferentem and its application to insurance disputes as follows:
The most frequently employed principle of interpretation . . . is contra proferentem, which roughly translated means “against the drafter” or “against the offeror.” This is the rule that an ambiguous provision in an insurance policy—one that is subject to two reasonable interpretations—is interpreted against the drafter. Since the drafter of an insurance policy is almost always the insurer, for practical purposes this translates into a rule that ambiguous policy language is interpreted in favor of coverage. Literally thousands of reported decisions have applied this rule.
Kenneth S. Abraham & Daniel Schwarcz, Insurance Law & Regulation 41 (6th ed. 2015).
In Brooklyn Union—a complex case concerning excess coverage for contributions to environmental remediation of the Gowanus Canal in New York City—Justice Lebovits declined to apply the contra proferentem doctrine to resolve an ambiguous policy provision concerning per occurrence limits, explaining:
The First Department has held that contra proferentem does not govern interpretation of insurance policies when the policyholder is sophisticated. (See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v MCI Communications Corp., 74 AD3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2010].)
In Westchester Fire, the parties contested on appeal whether contra proferentem should apply to the construction of an endorsement to the underlying insurance policy. Defendant MCI . . . argued that contra proferentem applied whether or not MCI was a sophisticated policyholder. Westchester Fire Insurance . . . argued the doctrine did not apply, on the ground that MCI was a large company that had a separate risk-management department and obtained insurance through the Johnson & Higgins brokerage. The First Department agreed with Westchester Fire Insurance. The Court’s decision held in categorical terms that contra proferentem “would be inapplicable to this sophisticated policyholder.”
The contra proferentem principle focuses on the drafting of the contract and not the sophistication of the parties, per se. Thus, reflexively denying the benefit of the doctrine to a “sophisticated insured”—without consideration of what if any role the insured may have played in the drafting of the policy—would seem improper. Importantly, while the First Department’s brief decision in Westchester Fire does, as Justice Lebovits observed, appear to impose a categorial rule for sophisticated insureds, the earlier case it relied on for this proposition, Cummins, Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 56 A.D.3d 288 (1st Dep’t 2008), actually focused on the insured’s role in drafting the policy. Id. at 290 (declining to apply contra proferentem because “the basic concept and terms originated with plaintiff [insured], [] plaintiff is sophisticated and was instrumental in crafting various parts of the agreement”) (emphasis added). The Restatement of the Law of Liability rejects a “sophisticated insured” exception to contra proferentem, observing that “[b]y placing the responsibility for residual ambiguity on the party that is most in control of the language of the policy, the contra proferentem rule provides an important incentive to draft terms clearly regardless of the sophistication of the policyholder.”
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Delaware Bankruptcy Court Rules That Qui Tam Action Filed Under Seal—and Never Served—Triggers D&O Policy’s Prior and Pending Litigation Exclusion
- “Related Acts” and the Claims Made Policy—The Policy Provision that “Cannot Be Applied Literally”
- California Court Rules that FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand is Not a Covered Claim Under Technology Errors and Omissions Policy
- Delaware Court Dismisses D&O Coverage Action as Premature Under Policy’s “No Action” Clause
- Chubb Prepares to Pay $350 Million to State of Maryland for Baltimore Bridge Collapse
- Sixth Circuit Rules That Insurer is Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs, Holding That Reservation of Rights Letter Created an Implied-In-Fact Contract
- Fifth Circuit Holds Contract Exclusion Does Not Bar Defense Coverage for Ticket Holders Lawsuit Arising From Festival Cancelled During Covid-19 Pandemic
- HNRK Secures Win for Syngenta in Insurance Coverage Appeal at Delaware Supreme Court
- New York Court Considers Evidence Regarding Insurers Handling of Prior Claims in Denying Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
- HNRK Insurance Recovery Partners Author Article for Chambers 2024 Global Practice Guide
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- D&O Policies
- CGL Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Related Claims
- Occurrence/Accident
- Rules of Interpretation
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Cyber Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- Indemnification and Advancement
- COVID-19
- Pollution Exclusion
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Excess Insurance
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Covered Loss
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018