Contracts Commons^™

Unmet Expectations: Undue Restriction Of The Reasonable Expectations Approach And The Misleading Mythology Of Judicial Role, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

A complete and open embrace of the pure version of the doctrine as enunciated in Judge Keeton's famous article--which expressly provides for finding coverage consistent with the objectively reasonable expectations of the policyholder even where those expectations are contradicted by apparently clear policy language --is viewed by much of the legal and political mainstream as too inconsistent with the prevailing American paradigm of judicial restraint, strict construction of disputed texts, and minimal government involvement in market activity. Some of this resistance to reasonable expectations is the product of an unrealistic reification of the prevailing American politico-legal philosophy of judicial restraint. …

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance law in the year 1998.

On Parol: The Construction And Interpretation Of Written Agreements And The Role Of Extrinsic Evidence In Contract Litigation, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

As a general rule, extrinsic evidence, whether written or oral, is not admissible to prove either the intent of the parties to a contract or the meaning of contractual terms when the parties have executed an unambiguous, fully-integrated (i.e., final and all-inclusive) written agreement. The trial court may consider various types of extrinsic evidence, however, in determining whether a particular agreement is fully integrated or ambiguous, and even in choosing among rival interpretations of an agreement where ambiguity is not present. If the trial court determines that an agreement is not fully integrated, then the trier of fact may consider …

Gateway Widens Doorway To Imposing Unfair Binding Arbitration On Consumers, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

Hill v. Gateway, is but the most extreme example of a series of court decisions that allow large companies to impose potentially unfair binding arbitration agreements on unwitting consumers. The outcome in Gateway, however, is questionable on federal statutory, common law, and constitutional grounds.

Bootstrapping And Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Arbitral Infatuation And The Decline Of Consent, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution preserves for litigants a right to a jury trial in actions at law. The right to a jury trial does not attach for equitable actions, but in cases presenting claims for both legal and equitable relief a right to a jury trial exists for common questions of fact. Although many modern statutes and claims did not exist in 1791, the Amendment has been interpreted to require a jury trial of statutory claims seeking monetary damages, the classic form of legal relief, so long as there is a relatively apt analogy between the modern statutory …

Interpreting Insurance Policies, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Like any other contract, an insurance policy may become the subject of a legal dispute. When disputes arise over insurance coverage, lawyers must combine their skill in contract interpretation with their knowledge of insurance law, bringing both to bear on the special problems related to this type of contract. Each dispute has unique traits, but a few basic ground rules of contract law and insurance law can help you interpret insurance policies and resolve disputes over insurance coverage.

Reassessing The Sophisticated Policyholder Defense In Insurance Coverage Litigation, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Insurance law often is ironically regarded as both consistent and confusing. However, the 1980s saw significant flowering in the development of an insurance coverage interpretation doctrine that, although seriously flawed in its present form, offers the as yet untapped potential of substantial improvement in judicial construction of commercial insurance policies through seemingly inconsistent treatment of insurance coverage disputes.

During the past two decades, in response to the prodding of lawyers representing insurers, courts have increasingly noted that not all insurance policyholders are equal. Some have more money and bargaining clout than others. Some have more sophistication and understanding about the …

Immunity From Regulatory Price Squeeze Claims: From Keogh, Parker, And Noerr To Town Of Concord And Beyond, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

On September 21, 1990, the First Circuit handed down its decision in Town of Concord, Massachusetts v. Boston Edison Co. This case, the most recent in a growing line of court of appeals decisions examining the antitrust implications of public utility rate structures, represents the first time a United States court of appeals has unequivocally stated that an antitrust action based upon a “price squeeze” could not be maintained against a utility whose wholesale and retail rates were both fully regulated. Town of Concord notwithstanding, the courts are far from agreeing whether investor-owned electric or natural gas utilities are immune …

A Better Approach To Arbitrability, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Historically, Anglo-American courts refused to enforce arbitration agreements, jealously guarding their dispute resolution monopoly. During the early twentieth century, merchants and attorneys began seeking legislation requiring courts to defer to arbitration. The United States Abitration Act took effect January 1, 1926 and has remained essentially unchanged. It was written with the implicit assumption that it would be invoked by commercial actors having relatively equal bargaining power and emotive appeal to a jury. The Act says nothing to direct the court's inquiry concerning the quality of either party's assent to the arbitration clause other than requiring a written arbitration agreement and …

Pitfalls Of Public Policy: The Case Of Arbitration Agreements, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As the juxtaposition of these quotations suggests, judges have long held disparate views on the legitimacy and value of “public policy” considerations as a basis for legal decision making. The popular notion posits that Justice Holmes and legal realists carried the day, making public policy analysis an ordinary part of the adjudication process. The story, of course, is more complex than this legal version of Don Quixote. Many judges and lawyers, including Justice Holmes in other writings, continued to speak of adjudication in more formalist and positivist terms, with most laypersons in apparent agreement. Judge Burroughs' view of public policy …