Circuit Court Rejects Application of Doctrine of Contra Proferentem to Coverage Dispute

December 31, 2011 | Insurance Coverage

A severe flood that struck Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in 2008 damaged many of its businesses, including a manufacturing facility owned and operated by Penford Corporation. Penford submitted claims to its insurers, but they asserted that certain policy sublimits capped reimbursement for damages caused by a flood and that those sublimits applied to both property damage and business interruption losses.

Penford contended that the sublimits applied only to property damage, and it sued. After the district court denied Penford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted judgment in favor of the insurers, Penford appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Penford argued that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law under the doctrine of contra proferentem. According to Penford, the district court had correctly determined that the policy language was ambiguous but it erred in failing to resolve that ambiguity by applying the doctrine against the insurers, as the drafters of the policy.

The circuit court decided that the doctrine of contra proferentem was inapplicable in this case. First, it pointed out, the evidence most favorable to the insurers was equivocal on the identity of the drafter of the policy form, given the back-and-forth nature of the drafting process and the relatively equal bargaining power of the parties. Second, the circuit court added that the doctrine should not be applied “when the question may be resolved in light of facts developed via extrinsic evidence,” as occurred in this case.

As the circuit court observed, the doctrine does not bar the use of oral testimony to clarify a written contract, but is “a tie-breaker, used to resolve cases in which the written contract remains ambiguous even after oral evidence has been admitted.”

Accordingly, the circuit court concluded that the district court had properly denied Penford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The case is Penford Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 10-3068 (8th Cir. Nov. 29, 2011).]

Case & Point

Recent noteworthy decisions

Policy Excludes Coverage for Losses from Dishonest Employee’s “Professional Services”

After an investment adviser discovered that an employee had stolen money belonging to clients, its professional liability insurer denied coverage, contending that the dishonest employee fell within the policy exclusion for an individual performing professional services who had a basis to believe that his acts “might reasonably be expected to be the basis of a claim.” The investment adviser argued that the employee had not been performing “professional services” when he stole the funds, but the court rejected that contention. In the court’s view, just because a person may have acted outside the scope of his or her authority did not mean the person was not rendering professional services. The court then ruled that the professional liability policy negated coverage of the investment adviser’s claim. [Professional Asset Strategies, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., No. 10-14302 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2011).]

 Misrepresentations in Proof of Loss Doom Coverage Claim

After a fire destroyed a building it owned, Pettinaro Enterprises, LLC, submitted a proof of loss (“POL”) to its insurer to recover lost rents. The insurer responded that the building was vacant, that Pettinaro did not lose any rental income after the fire, and that Pettinaro’s POL implicated the “Concealment, Misrepresentation or Fraud” clause in the policy, voiding the policy. The court ruled that the complaint against the insurer should be dismissed, stating that the misrepresentation about losses in the POL was “undoubtedly material” and that no reasonable jury could conclude that Pettinaro had not intended to deceive the insurer in claiming a loss of rents when the building was vacant and had been for years. [Pettinaro Enterprises, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., Nos. 11-1070, 11-1195 (3d Cir. Nov. 9, 2011).]

Related Publications


Legal updates and news delivered to your inbox