Proving Renewal Policy Language of Missing Insurance Policies
September 2011
This series outlines how a party
in a court of law may reconstruct missing insurance policies that
have not been located through traditional methods of insurance archaeology.
This fifth of six articles identifies some of the important insuring
language of standard policy forms and how it may be used to reconstruct
missing coverage for multiple policy years. Previous articles dealt
with
basic legal concepts,
secondary evidence,
expert witness testimony, and proving
standard policy language.
by
Douglas L. Talley, J.D.
Risk
International
As stated in a previous article, stock insurance companies have
utilized standard contract wordings for comprehensive/commercial
general liability (CGL) coverage over the past 60 years as drafted
for the insurance industry, first by the National Bureau of Casualty
Underwriters (NBCU); after January 2, 1968, by its successor, the
Insurance Rating Board; and as of April 1, 1971, by its successor,
the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). Essentially the same
standard contract wordings were drafted for mutual insurance companies,
first by the American Mutual Insurance Alliance from 1935 to 1968,
then, after reorganization and name change, by the Mutual Insurance
Rating Bureau and, as of 1971, by ISO as its successor.
CGL Policy Language
The first standard CGL insurance policy form was issued in 1941,
and ISO and its predecessors issued revised forms in 1943, 1947,
1955, 1966, 1973, 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1993.1
Because these standard CGL forms generally did not permit alteration
to the insuring agreement language of the forms, the only option
an insurer had to alter such an insuring agreement was to omit it
altogether or to provide an endorsement approved by a supervising
state authority. Accordingly, if secondary evidence of a missing
CGL policy issued on a standard form indicates that such policy
provided bodily injury coverage or property damage coverage, then
the insuring agreements for that policy would typically have been
the standard language provided on the CGL insurance form and approved
by the state regulators.
This principle was affirmed in the case
Century Indem. Co. v. Aero-Motive Mfg. Co.,
254 F. Supp. 2d 670 (W.D. Mich. 2003), where the court noted that
a member or subscriber of the NBCU "was
required to use NBCU CGL forms unless it applied for and received
approval to deviate from those forms" (emphasis added).
In earlier years, the basic CGL policy form was unchanged for
significant periods of time. The so-called accident form was utilized
for 11 years between 1955 and 1966. The "occurrence" form, introduced
in 1966, was used for the next 7 years until 1973. And when the
"sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion was introduced as a
standard feature in the 1973 form, that exclusion, together with
the rest of the form, was used for the next 13 years until 1986.
Therefore, in the reconstruction of missing insurance policies,
the important nonfinancial terms of coverage can be established
for a significant span of time by reference to the standard forms
issued in 1955, 1966, and 1973.
For example, the standard CGL insurance form for the NBCU's 1955
policy provided liability coverage as follows.
Blank Indemnity Company
Agrees with the Insured, named in the declarations
made a part hereof, in consideration of the payment
of the premium and in reliance upon the statements
in the declarations and subject to the limits of
liability, exclusions, conditions, and other terms
of this policy:
INSURING AGREEMENTS
Coverage A – Bodily Injury Liability
To pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which
the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay
as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or
disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom,
sustained by any person and caused by accident.
Coverage B – Property Damage Liability
To pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the
Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as
damages because of injury to or destruction of property,
including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident.
Significantly, the 1955 CGL insurance policy form did not define
the term "accident," which became the subject of repeated litigation.
The 1966 standard CGL form attempted to correct this problem and
provided liability coverage as follows.
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
-
Coverage A – Bodily Injury Liability
Coverage B – Property Damage Liability
The company will pay on behalf of the insured all
sums which the insured shall become legally obligated
to pay as damages because of
a. bodily injury or
b. property damage
to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence,
and the company shall have the right and duty to
defend any suit against the insured seeking damages
on account of such bodily injury or property damage....
The 1966 CGL form expressly defined the term "occurrence" as
"an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which
results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property
damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the
insured...." The 1973 CGL form provided the same insuring agreement
as the 1966 form but changed the definition of "occurrence" by specifying
that "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated" exposure to
conditions resulting in bodily injury/property damage that was not
expected or intended by the insured.
Establishing the Existence of Renewal Policies
With these basic insuring agreements established by reference
to the standard forms issued by ISO and its predecessors, it is
possible to reconstruct material nonfinancial terms of multiple
insurance policies from 1955 to 1986 where the secondary evidence
of the missing policies indicates the continued renewal of the missing
policies.
For example, the secondary evidence of a missing policy may include
a broker cover letter indicating that the missing policy was "renewed
as expiring." Another common example is the declarations page of
a policy, which indicates that such policy was a "Renewal of Policy
_____" (usually identified by number). In instances such as these,
the terms "renewed" and "renewal" have particular significance in
the trade practice of the insurance industry.
As a firmly established principle of historic underwriting practice,
a renewal policy will continue in force the same terms and conditions
of a previous policy, absent notice to the contrary. This principle
is readily supported by the learned treatises of the insurance profession,
as in the following excerpt from the Applemans' treatise on insurance.
Where a policy is renewed by agreement of the parties,
it is presumed that the same terms, conditions,
premiums, and subject matter obtain in the new contract
as in the old. Where the renewal agreement so recites,
or unless it provides otherwise, the terms and conditions
of the existing policy are not changed, enlarged,
or restricted by a renewal but are merely continued
in force as binding on the parties.
Appleman, John Alan and Jean. Insurance Law and Practice. Volume 13A, § 7648. St. Paul,
MN: West Publishing Co., 1976.
Couch's treatise on insurance also supports this view.
It is certainly in keeping with the reasonable intent
of the parties that where an insurer agrees to renew
a policy, the insured should have a right to expect
that the new protection will be in substance the
same as that afforded by the former contract and
upon the same conditions.... An insured is bound
to know that a renewal policy is of the same tenor
as the original policy.
Russ, Lee R. and Thomas F. Segalla.
Couch on Insurance. Deerfield,
IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan Pub., 2005.
In other words, if an agreement to renew a policy
is made and no departure from the terms of the original
contract is proposed or agreed upon, it will be
presumed that the policy to be issued, that is,
the renewal policy, is to contain the same terms
and conditions as the policy which is to be superseded.
Id., § 29:41, at pp. 29–49.
As a corollary of the above principle, an insurer,
in issuing a policy which differs from the original,
is obligated to inform the insured as to the changes
if there has been no special agreement for terms
differing from those of the original contract.
Id., § 29:42, at pp. 29–51.
The specific term "renewal" used according to standard industry-wide
practice, therefore, has significant meaning. In the words of
Couch, cited above, that term
is a recital of continued coverage from one policy to the next,
"where the renewal agreement ... recites ... [that] the terms and
conditions of the existing policy are not changed, enlarged, or
restricted by a renewal but are merely continued in force as binding
on the parties."
Conclusion
Accordingly, absent any notice to the contrary, documents that
indicate a renewal of previous coverage, such as on a policy declarations
page or in a broker letter, provide evidence that both the previously
issued policy and the renewal policy contain the same terms of coverage.
Therefore, because of the use of standard policy forms—which changed
very little over extended periods of time—missing policy coverage
can frequently be sufficiently reconstructed over multiple policy
years when the secondary evidence indicates a continued pattern
of renewal.
1
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.