California Court of Appeal, Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, A168803, Certified for Publication

Insurance Contracts

 

Interpretation

 

California Law

 

Croskey, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation (The Rutter Group 2023)

 

 

 

 

(…) The provisions in the excess policies, policies that, as plaintiffs concede, are “generally interpreted using the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation.” We described this and other rules of policy interpretation in Alterra Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Snyder (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1402: “‘“while insurance contracts have special features, they are still contracts to which the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply.” [Citations.] “The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.]” [Citation.] “Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract.” [Citation.] “If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. (Civ. Code, §1638.)” [Citation.] Moreover, if the policy’s terms are “‘used by the parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to them by usage,’” this use or meaning “controls judicial interpretation.” [Citation.]’ (La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th27, 37.)” In short, the “interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law.” (Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 18 (Waller).) And “if contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.”  (Yahoo, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA (2022) 14Cal.5th 58, 67.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Sept. 5, 2024, Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, A168803, Certified for Publication)