Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Insurance Law
Contra Proferentem: The Allure Of Ambiguous Boilerplate, Michelle E. Boardman
Contra Proferentem: The Allure Of Ambiguous Boilerplate, Michelle E. Boardman
Michigan Law Review
Bad boilerplate can shake one' s faith in evolution; not only does it not die away, it multiplies. The puzzle is why. Much of boilerplate is ambiguous or incomprehensible. This alienates consumers and is i ncreasingly punished by courts construing the language against the drafter. There must, therefore, be some hidden allure to ambiguous boilerplate. The popular theory is trickery: drafters lure consumers in with promising language that comes to nothing in court. But this trick would require consumers to do three things they do not do-read the language, understand it, and take comfort in it. There is a hidden …
A Reasonable Approach To The Doctrine Of Reasonable Expectations As Applied To Insurance Contracts, Karen K. Shinevar
A Reasonable Approach To The Doctrine Of Reasonable Expectations As Applied To Insurance Contracts, Karen K. Shinevar
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I of this article examines standard insurance contract analysis and the existing confusion within that analysis. Part II examines the doctrine of reasonable expectations. In Part Ill, Professor Keeton's expansion of the reasonable expectations doctrine is explained and analyzed. This article concludes in Part IV that Keeton's expanded doctrine has the effect of confusing most courts, which continue to discuss reasonable expectations in relation to conventional rules of contract construction. The article proposes that the reasonable expectations doctrine be limited to contractual language and surrounding circumstances in order to establish clearer guidelines for insurers and consumers.
Insurance - "Liability" Of "Indemnity" Contract - "No Action" Clause
Insurance - "Liability" Of "Indemnity" Contract - "No Action" Clause
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff sued his insurer upon a policy which provided that the defendant would indemnify the insured against loss from liability for damages and would defend any suit brought against the assured to recover such damages. The policy contained a "no action" clause which denied a right of action unless a final judgment had been rendered and the assured had actually sustained a loss by payment of such judgment. Such a suit, brought against the plaintiff, had been unsuccessfully defended by the insurer. It was held that plaintiff could recover on the policy upon the rendition of the judgment and without …