Though not exactly breaking news, it is well worth noting here that, late last year, the U.S. District Court for Western District of PA ruled, that ambiguities in insurance policies must be interpreted in favor of the policyholder and, consequently, that extrinsic evidence must not be considered in interpreting ambiguous policy provisions. Federal Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 2:05-cv-305 (W.D Pa. Nov. 22, 2006). While it has been argued that this is and must be the rule of law in PA, courts have not always taken this approach. See Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., No. 6 W.D. App. Docket, 1986 (Pa. December 16, 1986), Penn Twp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., Nos. 1071 Harrisburg, 1997, 1072 Harrisburg, 1997, 1073 Harrisburg, 1997 (Pa. Super. September 2, 1998); 12th St. Gym v. General Star Indem. Co., Nos. 95-1845, 95-1846 (3d Cir. August 28, 1996).
More on this here. Also, see my article in the March 20, 2007 issue of Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance, "Court Rules Ambiguities in Insurance Policies Favor Policyholders."
More on this here. Also, see my article in the March 20, 2007 issue of Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance, "Court Rules Ambiguities in Insurance Policies Favor Policyholders."
