Opinion ID: 1375765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: should the doctrine of reasonable expectations be applied?

Text: The Pribbles argue that even if the household exclusion clause were clear and unambiguous, the district court should have permitted a jury to consider the Pribbles' reasonable expectations in determining the amount of insurance coverage available. Where insurance contract terms are clear and unambiguous, the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties are irrelevant to contract construction issues. State ex rel. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., County of Teton, 844 P.2d 1099, 1102 (Wyo.1993). A rule of construction that considers the reasonable expectations of the parties is of no assistance where the policy terms are clear and unambiguous. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Albany County School Dist. No. 1, 763 P.2d 1255, 1263 (Wyo.1988). We hold that the contract terms here are clear and unambiguous, and rules of construction such as the doctrine of reasonable expectations are inapplicable.