Source: https://insurancecommentary.com/duty-and-opportunity-to-read-an-insurance-policy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:56:00+00:00

Document:
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, I am writing a book with the working title “When Words Collide: Resolving Insurance Coverage and Claim Disputes.” I’ve completed the first draft of the first two major chapters and along the way plan to post some excerpts on my blog. Keep in mind that these posts are from the initial rough draft of the book and may be modified substantially before publication.
In this excerpt from the chapter on “Policy Interpretation Basics,” I excerpt part of the discussion about whether an insured has a duty to read the policy. Courts are split on this and each situation stands on its own merits. A bigger issue, from my experience spanning four decades is, do agents, brokers, underwriters, adjusters, consultants, expert witnesses, etc. have a duty to read the policy? Of course they do.
Another issue I explore below is, what happens if a claim occurs before the insured is given the opportunity to read the policy? Can insurers enforce exclusions and limitations in a contract they’ve never given the insured the opportunity to read? A number of courts say they cannot.
With that, on with this blog post….
Who reads rental agreements at the counter when renting a car? Pretty much no one. Who reads 78-page software or phone app licensing agreements? Almost certainly no one. Who reads insurance policies? Virtually no insureds and far too few insurance professionals like agents, underwriters, and adjusters. Why? In the case of insureds, one reason might be that the actual policy forms are not provided for days or weeks after coverage is bound. A presumption of an insured might be that, if the insurer doesn’t see a need for the insured to read the policy before entering into the insurance contract and perhaps weeks afterwards, is there really any need to read it when received? Would whether or not an insured reads the policy make any difference in how a claim is resolved?
Three times in the last few years, I’ve conducted research on the danger of purchasing insurance online. Most recently, it involved getting online quotes for auto and homeowners insurance directly from an insurer’s web site or through several of many web sites that allow you to get multiple premium quotes. In each instance, I communicated through the web site or via email, asking for a copy of the insurance contract (i.e., policy forms) to review in order to make a purchasing decision. In every single instance, as was my experience in my prior two experiments, the insurer refused to give me a copy of the policy forms.
Can you think of any other type of written contract you enter into (financing or leasing an auto, buying or renting a home or apartment, etc.) where the party that wrote the contract REFUSED to allow you to read it before signing? For years I have had a standing $100 offer to the first person who can explain this rationale in a reasonable way. This bizarre approach is dangerous in many ways, the most important one for the purpose of this book being that it conditions consumers (along with incessant price-focused industry advertising) to believe that insurance is a commodity distinguished only by price. By the time you finish this book, we will have dispelled that dangerous myth.
In the state of Wisconsin, other cases include Kozlik v. Gulf ins. Co., 268 Wis.2d 491, 673 N.W.2d 343, 348 (Wis. Ct. App., 2003) and Gross v. Lloyds of London Ins. Co., 121 Wis.2d 78, 358 N.W.2d 266, 271 (Wis. Ct. App., 1984). The Kozlik case also references decisions in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Utah, and Washington, but I have not done an exhaustive review to determine how widespread this position actually is in the judiciary.
To answer a prior question, would an insured reading or not reading the policy prior to a claim make any difference in how that claim is resolved? Probably not. However, it might make a BIG difference in whether an insured engages in certain activities, purchases (and uses) certain property, etc. Knowing the likelihood and adequacy of coverage, whether learned by reading the policy or asking a representative of the insurer, is a critical aid to decision making that involves the assumption of risk.
What do the courts say about an insured’s responsibility to read the policy? As part of a decade-long project on insurance agents’ errors and omissions (E&O) loss control, I researched and monitored case law dealing with an insured’s duty to read insurance policies. Over that period, the case law ran about 50/50 as to whether insureds were responsible to read. In many cases that held that the insured was not responsible, the logic of the court was that, even if they read it, they were unlikely to understand it. Rather than print pages of case law on this subject, I’d simply direct you to the often-cited West Virginia Supreme Court “Broadnax” case that discusses this issue and links to other cases (e.g., Kelly v. Painter) that link to other cases addressing an insured’s obligation to read the insurance contract.
The bigger issue, in the context of this book, is whether those in the insurance industry ¾ agents, brokers, underwriters, adjusters, consultants, educators, and others ¾ have an obligation to read the policies they sell, service, underwrite, adjust, and consult and educate on. The obvious response to that question is, “Duh, of course they do.” The reality, though, is that far, far too many do not. I base that contention on a career spanning the past four decades where I’ve worked with many hundreds (if not thousands) agents on literally tens of thousands of coverage and claims issues.
Read and perhaps understand policy forms but can’t apply them to real-life coverage or claims scenarios.
These agents offer little more than a professional liability (E&O) insurance backstop for their incompetence compared to the “caveat emptor” do-it-yourself web sites that provide the same type of service. Why don’t they read the policy forms they sell? Many share the mistaken consumer view that insurance is a commodity, that all auto or renters or homeowners policies are essentially the same. As we will discover in this book, that is far from the truth. Others imply don’t care and their apathy imperils the financial solvency of individuals and families.
Several years ago, I got an inquiry from an insurance agency’s commercial lines manager who also had the Certified Insurance Counselor (CIC) professional designation. She wanted to know if a liquor store needed liquor liability coverage. According to her email, “I was always told that unless you were in the business of selling liquor for consumption on your premises, you did not need to purchase liquor liability.” Just recently I viewed some agent professional liability statistics and noted a very similar claim that arose from the failure to provide liquor liability coverage for a liquor store. “Knowledge by Folklore” (aka, “I’ve always heard that…”) is not how coverage determinations should be made.
Cancellation and nonrenewal of insurance contracts is something always addressed by insurance policies, often based on permissible reasons and timing prescribed by statutes. When it comes to policy rights, there is no “rule of thumb” or generalization based on hearsay. It’s impossible to answer coverage questions based on “an” auto policy or “a” CGL policy. To answer coverage questions and resolve claims, one must read and interpret the exact language in the insurance contract in question.
NextWhat Has Happened to the Insurance Industry?
GREAT article!!!! I sent it on to the IIA of IL Education Committee.
Bill, excellent article as usual. Here is my take on the “duty to read” issue as it applies to an insured. First, the use of the word “duty” implies a legal responsibility imposed by law. On the one hand, the producer is a professional, in a highly regulated industry, with literal reams of case law identifying and defining a producer’s duty. On the other hand, to suggest an insured has a duty is problematic. As you know, I have been involved, one way or the other, with insurance agents/brokers and while practicing law defended hundreds of agents. I secured the first Maryland court decision that dealt with an insured’s responsibility to read a policy [Twelve Knotts Limited Partnership v. Fireman’s Fund et al. circa 1981]. I believe a better approach, at least with respect to the insured, is found in another Maryland case, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Willis Corroon, 802 A.2d 1050 (Md. 2002). Without going into a long explanation, the essence of the court’s decision was that the “duty” is not necessarily to read the policy but simply to act reasonably under the circumstances. The court went into a comprehensive review of legal precedent before reaching its decision. The court addressed the issue of the insured’s duty to read a policy and, as you pointed out, stated that some jurisdictions believe the duty to read the policy exists, but that such duty is not the universal rule. Carry on sir! You do us, in the industry, proud!
Stan, great information. I’m on a tight publication schedule, but I’ll try to look into that and incorporate your point.
In Agent E & O court cases, the carrier often will use the defense that the agent didn’t create the insurance contract and is only a salesperson for the carrier and is not responsible for reading the policy or applying it correctly to the buyer’s exposure. It’s a defense that often wins, especially in Louisiana.
John, that’s not uncommon elsewhere either. In some states, the agent is viewed legally as no more than a policy peddler unless he or she holds himself or herself out as something more. My point about agents reading the policies they sell was less about the legal obligations and more about failure to do so negatively impacting their ability to properly cover their customers so as to minimize the potential for serious or catastrophic financial loss. Perhaps I should make that point clearer.
See Figueroa v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 664 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (Reversing summary judgment for the insurer for insureds failure to comply with policy condition, because insurer failed to comply with requests for a copy of the policy which set forth condition); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rousseau, 682 So. 2d 1229, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (Rejecting insurer’s argument it was entitled to directed verdict on failure to comply with conditions precedent, where insurer failed to timely comply with providing a copy of the policy).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.