Page 162 - FDCC_InsightsSpecialIssue23.2
P. 162

Property Law
 The opinion contains a number of nuggets likely to be cited in the future by both policyholder and insurer counsel. For example, the court acknowledged that negotiated manuscript language may not necessarily be interpreted adversely to the insurer, but noted the manuscript language here was copied from other insurance industry forms, so if necessary the language would be interpreted adversely to the insurer.
 Because the policy at issue contained non-standard provisions, the fact the court found that TCPA violations might be covered probably is the least important part of the holding in the long run. Like AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 807, 274 Cal. Rptr. 820, 799 P.2d 1253 (1990) and Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (1992) over 30 years ago, the long-term implications of this case are more likely to be on how courts interpret policy language.
   Andy Downs is an FDCC Defense Counsel member and a Shareholder in Bullivant Houser’s San Francisco, CA office. Contact him at:

   160   161   162   163   164