Mutual Boiler irreconcilable provisions, use tools of construction to determine meaning. Contra Proferentem Contra proferentem: EXCEPTION: Ambiguous terms are interepreted Statutory conditions against the author of the K, the Insurers did not write insurer these Irrelevant if the forms were Purpose of contra approved by a regulatory body preferentum is to avoid Rationale: self-interest self-interest, so that isn’t possible where party didn’t write them. Coverage/Exclusion Lloyd’s v. Chu Coverage Provisions Broadly Construed, **applies to both contract and Exclusions Narrowly Interpreted statutory conditions*** Similar rationale as contra preferentum Reasonable Corbould Determine the meaning of the ambigous Not withstanding the words, what Expectations term by reference to parties’ reasonable did parties actually think—use expectations at time of K extrinsic evidence Reasonable Expectations = what the Different than reasonable parties would have rationally expected if intentions at step one, which is they had addressed their minds to the what the parties must reasonable definition of an ambiguous contract term have envisioned or planned as in the context of the overall insurance evidenced by use of an product being purchased. Go beyond unambiguous term in the context intentions evidenced by wording, and of the whole K make presumptions based on the nature of the insurance K. Problematic: Whose reasonable expectations are paramount? Potential conflict undermining other interpretative principles Continuity of Gibbens SCC Courts should ensure that similar insurance policies are construed similarly to Judicial 2009 provide certainty and predictably, which as a matter of policy is in the interests Interpretation of insureds and insurers. Effect of Public Jesuit Fathers Cannot allow public policy concerns to Just b/c insurance fills public Policy: SCC 2006 trump foundational principles of service role of compensating interpretation. innocent third parties, doesn’t Consumer mean coverage should always be Protection/ found in interpretation. ProCoverage Vytlingham Example: Interpretation does not Seems to bring the “reasonable necessarily favour coverage expectations” into stage one… but no coverage from underinsured motorist Corbould says it is only for stage protection when tortfeasor dropped two. stones on car, b/c tortfeasor not using their car to do so. BCIA s. 32 Instead of bending interpretation to benefit the insured, use this section: Relief from unreasonable terms
Mutual Boiler irreconcilable provisions, use tools of construction to determine meaning. Contra Proferentem Contra proferentem: Ambiguous terms are interepreted against the author of the K, the insurer Irrelevant if the forms were approved by a regulatory body Rationale: self-interest EXCEPTION: Statutory conditions Insurers did not write these Purpose of contra preferentum is to avoid self-interest, so that isn’t possible where party didn’t write them. Coverage/Exclusion Lloyd’s v. Chu Coverage Provisions Broadly Construed, Exclusions Narrowly Interpreted Similar rationale as contra preferentum **applies to both contract and statutory conditions*** Reasonable Expectations Corbould Determine the meaning of the ambigous term by reference to parties’ reasonable expectations at time of K Reasonable Expectations = what the parties would have rationally expected if they had addressed their minds to the definition of an ambiguous contract term in the context of the overall insurance product being purchased. Go beyond intentions evidenced by wording, and make presumptions based on the nature of the insurance K. Problematic: Whose reasonable expectations are paramount? Potential conflict undermining other interpretative principles Not withstanding the words, what did parties actually think—use extrinsic evidence Different than reasonable intentions at step one, which is what the parties must reasonable have envisioned or planned as evidenced by use of an unambiguous term in the context of the whole K Continuity of Judicial Interpretation Gibbens SCC 2009 Courts should ensure that similar insurance policies are construed similarly to provide certainty and predictably, which as a matter of policy is in the interests of insureds and insurers. Effect of Public Policy: Consumer Protection/ ProCoverage Jesuit Fathers SCC 2006 Cannot allow public policy concerns to trump foundational principles of interpretation. Just b/c insurance fills public service role of compensating innocent third parties, doesn’t mean coverage should always be found in interpretation. Vytlingham Example: Interpretation does not necessarily favour coverage no coverage from underinsured motorist protection when tortfeasor dropped stones on car, b/c tortfeasor not using their car to do so. Seems to bring the “reasonable expectations” into stage one… but Corbould says it is only for stage two. BCIA s. 32 Instead of bending interpretation to benefit the insured, use this section: Relief from unreasonable terms
191-Thomson-_Law_344-_Final_Long.docx