The law recognizes the fact that insurance policies are complex documents. The law also understands the insurance companies underwriting the policies possess a bargaining position that is obviously unequal and biased towards them. Because of this, the courts had developed a few ‘rules of construction’ when insurance policies are read. These rules tend to guard the interests of the insured person. If a provision in the policy could be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, the courts would only uphold the interpretation that would support the coverage under the insurance policy instead of the interpretation that would support the denial of the policy coverage. If more than one reasonable interpretation for reading an exclusion of the coverage exists, the courts would tend to accept only the narrowest possible interpretation of the language of exclusion.
If the insured person feels that certain terms in the policy appear to be different from what the insurance company claimed it meant, how can this issue be resolved?By Lucy Fisher