If you are not a subscriber you will read from this link until you reach the paywall end of this blog post as the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
This is a taste of the latest Excellence in Claims Handling Article for subscribers to my substack.
Every person that acquires a policy of insurance, whether designed to protect a dwelling, a commercial property, agriculture, crops from destruction by the actions of nature, or from liability arising from claims of torts, or cyber-attacks, must read and understand the policy before it is acquired to determine whether it provides the coverage requested. If a loss that could be subject to insurance it must be read again before making a claim to an insurer.
A majority of the courts that have been called upon to interpret an insurance policy require that the person seeking insurance must read the insurance contract or B at the very least B have, a lawyer or insurance professional read, understand and explain the policy to the person acquiring the insurance.
For the last 58 years I have asked people making claims on an insurance policy whether they have read and understood their insurance policy. Most just laughed and claimed they never tried. Two, in my career, answered Ayes@ only to find after further questioning it became obvious that both lied since they knew nothing about the terms or conditions of the policy, they claimed they had read and understood. These facts horrify me as an insurance coverage lawyer, a consultant and an expert witness testifying in courts across the United States about the purchase and sale of insurance contracts and insurance claims handling.
My career, starting as a trainee adjuster in 1967 and later as an insurance coverage lawyer required that I read, understand and apply insurance policies issued by my clients to individuals and businesses. I have written, edited or revised, policies of insurance on behalf of insurer clients. I even read insurance policies I acquire to protect my property and protect me against tort liability before I order the policy. I know I am unusual, but I should not be. My practice should be the norm. Before beginning to read an insurance policy you seek you must first understand what insurance is.
Many states have different definitions of the word Ainsurance@ but each have the same essential elements:
It must be a written contract.
One party (the insurer) must agree with the other (the insured) as to the insurance provided.
The insurer, for consideration (payment of a premium) agrees to indemnify the insured against a contingent or unknown event.
The promise to indemnify is limited to certain identified risks of loss arising from a fortuitous, contingent or unknown events.
Insurance is a contract like all other contracts. Lawyers and judges believe no one should enter into a contract ignorant of its terms and conditions. Many people would never sign a lease without reading it. No businessperson will sign a lease until he or she has been advised by a lawyer representing the businessperson alone, of its terms, conditions, limitations, and whether it is favorable to the person seeking to lease commercial property. No one should agree to the terms of a mortgage without reading the contract.
Insurance contracts, however, are almost universally not read by the person insured. Some are not read by the agent, broker or underwriter who sell the insurance, nor the lawyers retained to enforce it. Yet hundreds of hours of the work of insurance professionals are involved in the writing of policies of insurance.
Modern insurance policies, as a result of state statutes, are required to be written in plain language or easy to read language sufficient for anyone with a fourth‑grade education to understand. I describe the modern language of insurance policies as ASesame Street English.@ There is no reasonable excuse available for not reading an insurance policy.
Why, then, do people fail to read their insurance policy?
Insurance policies have a bad reputation. People believe insurance policies are impossible to understand. Courts in the past have encouraged this belief. Policies are believed by the common person to be confusing and complicated. Sections of the contract are frequently cross‑referenced to other sections of the policy, often in a convoluted way.
Insurance companies strive to make their policies as clear as possible because when coverage is subject to a legal challenge, ambiguity in the language will always be interpreted in a way that favors the insured, not the insurer.
For example, in Insurance Company of North America v. Electronic Purification Company, 67 Cal. 2d 679, 689, 63 Cal. Rptr. 382, 433 (1967) the California Supreme Court noted:
[T]he insurance company gave the insured coverage in relatively simple language easily understood by the common man in the marketplace but attempted to take away a portion of this same coverage in paragraphs and language which even a lawyer, be he from Philadelphia or Bungy, would find difficult to comprehend.
Courts, called upon to interpret or enforce a contract of insurance, will always conclude that if an insurance contract is neither ambiguous nor difficult to comprehend, it will be enforced as written. [Sharbono v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 139 Wash. App. 383, 394 (2007)]
If twenty‑first century judges want to make better sense of the insurance area of law, they should start by understanding and admitting that:
Almost nobody reads everything he or she signs;
Almost nobody is able to read everything he or she signs;
What drafters do want is to be able to treat those insured as if he or she had read everything.
Drafters of insurance policies do not care if, in fact, he or she has not C and, indeed, in many cases would prefer that he or she did not.
Do not create a duty to read the policy. That just adds insult to injury.
However, it is black letter law that one who knowingly and voluntarily assents to a contract whose terms are contained in a writing should be held legally responsible for his or her actions by being held to those terms, in the absence of fraud, mistake, or other excusing cause.
A party cannot negotiate, enter into and perform under a contract, only to later claim that it objected to some provision of the contract and thus retained a mental reservation to the terms of the agreement. Such a holding creates the risk that any disgruntled party may belatedly assert a lack of “voluntary” assent to a contract that it executed and performed. [DJ Mortg., LLC v. Synovus Bank, 750 S.E.2d 797, 325 Ga.App. 382 (Ga. App. 2013)]
Whether almost no one reads their insurance policies B and my experience seems to establish the fact, that fact does not make them less effective and enforceable contracts. An adhesion contract only means the person offering the contract gives the person to whom it is offered only two choices:
accept the contract or
reject the contract.
If accepted the contract is enforceable even if the insured had not read the policy.
The need for Aplain language@ in an insurance policy was first described in the United States in the early 1950s. The Federal Government=s most recent plain‑language initiative began in 1998, when President Clinton issued a Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing to the heads of executive departments and agencies. He said:
We are determined to make the Government more responsive, accessible, and understandable in its communications with the public. By using plain language, we send a clear message about what the Government is doing, what it requires, and what services it offers. Plain language saves the Government and the private sector time, effort, and money. [President Clinton. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Plain Language in Government Writing. June 1, 1998.
There is no one generally accepted definition of plain language or plain English. But most people agree that a plain‑language document is one in which people can:
Find what they need,
Understand what they find, and
Act appropriately on that understanding.
Key elements of plain language are to:
Organize information so the most important behavioral or action points come first;
Break complex information into understandable chunks;
Use simple language or define technical terms; and
Provide ample white space so pages look easy to read.
In addition to the key elements, there are dozens of plain‑language guidelines and techniques such as using short sentences and active voice when possible. Document design principles highlight the importance of organization and format and enhance the impact of plain language.
Good document design required bringing together prose, graphics and typography for purposes of instruction, information, or persuasion. Plain language does not require the writer of an insurance policy to Adumb down@ the policy or eliminate the required precision necessary to make a contract enforceable.
Sometimes, insurance professionals are concerned that using plain language will oversimplify information to the point where it is inaccurate or worthless. Plain language is not anti‑intellectual, unsophisticated, drab, or inadequate. Plain language has to do with clear and effective communication C and should be considered nothing more nor less.
It is the style of Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, and Winston Churchill. Plain language is not just about vocabulary or grade level. Writing to a certain grade level does not necessarily ensure that the message is in plain language or understood by the intended audience. All materials, all terms and all conditions, especially in an insurance policy, should be evaluated for understanding with the intended users, regardless of grade‑level score.
States followed the direction set by the federal government and required insurers to modify their insurance policies to be written in plain language. In doing so, the plain language insurance policies took away the argument that the policy was too hard to understand and, for that reason, should not be enforced to the detriment of the insurer.
So, why, with the new, easy to read, plain language policies, do people fail to read the insurance policy? There is no logical answer. Perhaps it is the imbedded prejudice that makes some people believe they could never understand a policy even if they tried to read it. More likely it is simply the fact that most people trust the insurance agent or broker who obtained the policy for them and trust – often, without cause – the agent or broker to get the coverages they needed.
From my 58‑years= reading and interpreting insurance contracts I can only say that those people who did not read their policy get very upset when their insurance agent or broker tells them they acquired the best available policy and that it covers almost everything. However, in fact, it does not mean the policy covered every possible contingency.
When an adjuster or lawyer points out that there is no available coverage for their claim, they contend they were deceived. Had the insured read the policy before it was acquired, he or she would know that no insurance policy covers every possible risk of loss faced by a person or business. Some risks of loss are difficult, if not impossible, to insure. Consider the risk of loss by war, atomic attack, earthquake, flood, etc. can be insured but only for extremely high premium and deductibles or self‑insured retentions so expensive to make such coverages unsaleable.
Most insurance policies, as a result, exclude B in clear and unambiguous language B coverage for those extreme risks. The person insured who does not read the policy will be upset when his property is destroyed by a flood or earthquake. Had he read the policy and wanted coverage for earthquake or flood he or she would have been directed to a specialty insurer who is in business to issue a policy B probably expensive B that provides that coverage.
“[C]ourts cannot read policy provisions to be meaningless.” [The Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Pac. Indem. Co., 25 Civ. 6308 (PAE) (S.D. N.Y. Jul 24, 2026). A court should accord contract language its plain meaning giving due consideration to the surrounding circumstances and apparent purpose which the parties sought to accomplish. Courts should read policy provisions to avoid ambiguities, if possible, and not torture the language to create them. [J.D. Eckman, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 23-2759 (3rd Cir. Dec 12, 2025)]
The duty to read a policy appears in multiple jurisdictions. For example: In Georgia, the insured has a duty to read and understand the policy. [Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 530 S.E.2d 229, 231 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)] An insured who can read is required to read the policy and is presumed to have understood its contents. The law provides that an insured has a duty to read policy language. Hofeld v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 59 Ill.2d 522, 322 N.E.2d 454 (1975). A review of the express language of the UIM endorsement and the general purpose of such policies reveals that such an expectation was unreasonable.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.