Home

Table of Contents

 Table of Forms   Law Journals-US  Authoritative Dictionary

 Courts

  Thesaurus
         

iLaw Dictionary

    USAConstitution Law
         

California

    BankruptcyCode.US
         

Law Dictionary

    iBusiness Center.US
         

 Rule of Contract Interpretation

    United States Law.US

US Codes

  State Codes

  Evidence

   Law Students-USL

 News

Entertainment

Medical Dictionaries

                                                 
      
A Legal and Business Portal-Home
   

   
                 
                 

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 
Rule of Contract Interpretation

 

 Rule of Contract Interpretation

Significantly, the word “theft” is used both in the vehicle theft exclusion and its exception.  Despite this, Zurich would have us find that the vehicle theft exclusion applies generally to all thefts from a vehicle, while the exception applies only to the greater crime of robbery.  Accepting Zurich’s interpretation would require that we give different meanings to the same term used in the same policy paragraph.  This would run afoul of the rule of contract interpretation that the same word used in an instrument is generally given the same meaning unless the policy indicates otherwise.  (See, e.g., Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1109, 1116-1117; Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 741; People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 516, 526.)  Had Zurich intended the exception to apply only to situations involving force or intimidation, i.e., robbery, while the exclusion applied to theft, it should have used the more accurate term “robbery” to put the insured on notice.  As written, a reasonable insured would not interpret the language as Zurich contends.

            Construing the ambiguous language in favor of the insured, in a manner consistent with the insured’s reasonable expectations, and keeping in mind that exclusionary provisions are narrowly interpreted while exceptions are broadly construed, we hold that the exception to the vehicle theft exclusion applies when an insured is in close proximity to the vehicle and is attending to it.
E.M.M.I. v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 2/23/04 SC Feb 23 2004-S109609
 

========================================================================

 


Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents |
California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |starUnited Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.ComLibrary of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US |
United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com


Copyright 2003 by  © - iLawDictionary.Com™©  All Rights Reserved