HNRK Coverage Corner
On December 26, 2023, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Ezrasons, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Co., Docket No. 22-766, construing an ambiguous provision in a marine cargo insurance policy in favor of the insured under the doctrine of contra proferentem.
As the Second Circuit explained: “When dealing with insurance policies, it is a ‘fundamental’ principle of New York law that ambiguities should be interpreted against the insurer and in favor of the insured.” This rule of construction (which we have discussed in previous posts) is an application of the contra proferentem doctrine—i.e., interpreting ambiguous contract provisions against the drafting party.
In Ezrasons, the Second Circuit applied this rule and construed an ambiguous provision in favor of coverage. In discussing the background law, however, the Second Circuit observed (citing two of its earlier decisions) that the rule of contra proferentem “is used only ‘as a matter of law resort’,” after making use of all other available tools to resolve the ambiguity,” including consideration of extrinsic evidence.
That’s not how the New York Court of Appeals has described the rule. Nearly a hundred years ago, Judge Cardozo stated: “In the presence of ambiguity we adhere to the construction adverse to the insurer.” Killian v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 251 N.Y. 44, 48 (1929). Nothing in there about a “last resort.” More recently, the court has continued to apply the contra proferentem rule to insurance policies without the qualification suggested by the Second Circuit in Ezrasons. See, e.g., Jin Ming Chen v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 36 N.Y.3d 133, 142–43 (2020) (“Ambiguous provisions—those that may be reasonably interpreted in two conflicting manners—must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.”).
And while we’re name-dropping renowned New York jurists, no less a luminary of the Second Circuit than Learned Hand observed that “Contra proferentem is more rigorously applied in insurance than in other contracts. Insurers who seek to impose upon words of common speech an esoteric significance intelligible only to their craft, must bear the burden of any resulting confusion.” Gaunt v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 160 F.2d 599, 602 (2d Cir. 1947).
Here at the Coverage Corner, we’ll throw in our lot with Cardozo and Hand. The insurer typically drafts the policy and should bear the risk of any textual ambiguity for which it is responsible.
- 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
- CGL Policies
- D&O Policies
- Duty to Defend
- Damages
- E&O Policies
- Occurrence/Accident
- Related Claims
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Rules of Interpretation
- 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