About the Course
Introduction
This CLE webinar will discuss the interpretation of some of the most fiercely and frequently litigated words and phrases in insurance policies in the context of coverage disputes. The program will review the rules for construing insurance policies with respect to ambiguities, exclusions, plain meaning, burdens of proof, and more, and then consider whether these rules are evolving to produce unexpected coverage decisions that are changing insurance law. The speakers will offer both insurer and policyholder perspectives.
Description
Resolving coverage disputes and interpreting policies requires applying both traditional principles of contract interpretation and unique insurance-related rules of construction about ambiguities, exclusions, reasonable expectations, unconscionable advantage, illusory coverage, duty of utmost good faith, and much more. Notwithstanding that many policies have standard language and phraseology, policyholders, courts, and insurers often have difficulty ascertaining a policy's plain meaning in a given factual or procedural context, leading to seemingly inconsistent outcomes and unpredictability.
Insurance policies are long, complex, and labyrinthine documents that may not have been precisely drafted for a variety of reasons. Coverage can turn on the meaning of a single word or phrase, perhaps located paragraphs or pages away from the main provision. Some words and phrases get debated and interpreted over and over: arising out of, because of, connected or related to, accident, any, an, of, and for are just a few examples. As courts tweak or modify interpreting policies, the law can evolve about what is or is not covered under particular language.
Listen as this accomplished panel of insurance coverage attorneys reviews the rules for policy interpretation, discusses frequently litigated issues in the policy language, and offers insights into whether the law is evolving with respect to these often-disputed provisions.
Presented By
Mr. Armstrong's practice concentrates in insurance recovery exclusively on behalf of policyholders and commercial litigation. He regularly represents privately held and publicly traded companies against primary and excess insurers to secure coverage under property, commercial general liability, D&O, E&O and other insurance policies. Mr. Armstrong's practice also focuses on insurance recovery for cyber attacks, including ransomware, DDoS attacks, social engineering, malware attacks and other cyber threats. He holds a certificate from HarvardX for "Cybersecurity: Managing Risk in the Information Age."
Mr. Bertschi focuses his practice on insurance coverage, professional liability defense and data breach response. He represents insurance companies in litigating coverage disputes, including the institution of declaratory judgment actions and actions to rescind insurance policies, the defense of breach of contract actions and actions in which the insured alleges bad faith or extra-contractual damages, and actions between insurance companies to resolve allocation and relative priority issues. He also advises insurance companies on all aspects of the claims-resolution process, including the provision of coverage opinions, advice on the allocation of indemnity payments, strategies to minimize the risk of bad faith suits and suits to collect consent judgments, and advice as monitoring counsel.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Tuesday, March 31, 2026
- schedule
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
I. Overview of general rules of policy interpretation
II. Rules for finding and resolving ambiguity
III. Frequently litigated words and phrases: insurer and policyholder views
IV. Trends in policy interpretation
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- What are the different approaches courts take to resolve ambiguity?
- Is the policy always construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage?
- What happens when two equally clear provisions cancel each other out?
- Do insurance treatises make the law or reflect it?
