Opinion ID: 1980020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Principles of construction and burden of proof.

Text: An insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer, and in construing it we must first look to the language of the contract. Where [insurance] contract language is not ambiguous. . . a written contract duly signed and executed speaks for itself and binds the parties without the necessity of extrinsic evidence. In re Corriea, 719 A.2d 1234, 1239 (D.C.1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [U]nless it is obvious that the terms used in an insurance contract are intended to be used in a technical connotation, we must construe them consistently with the meaning which common speech comports. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). An insurance contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties do not agree on the interpretation of the contract provision in question. Byrd v. Allstate Ins. Co., 622 A.2d 691, 694 (D.C.1993) (citation omitted); Corriea, supra, 719 A.2d at 1239. In this jurisdiction, as elsewhere, it has long been a general rule of construction of policies of insurance . . . that any reasonable doubt which may arise as to the meaning or intent of a condition thereof, will be resolved against the insurer. United States Mut. Accident Ass'n of the City of New York v. Hodgkin, 4 App. D.C. 516, 523 (1894), error dismissed, 17 S.Ct. 1002, 41 L.Ed. 1184 (1897). [I]t is the insurer's duty to spell out in plainest terms  terms understandable to the man in the street  any exclusionary or delimiting policy provisions. Holt v. George Washington Life Ins. Co., 123 A.2d 619, 621 (D.C.1956) (citation omitted). Failing such unambiguous language, doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured. Id. at 622 (citation omitted). The rule that a real ambiguity in an insurance policy is to be construed against the company is not a rule of convenience or a mere technicality of legalists. Hayes v. Home Life Ins. Co., 83 U.S.App. D.C. 110, 112, 168 F.2d 152, 154 (1948) (Prettyman, J.). On the contrary, this rule is based on sound public policy, for the contracts in question are written by the insurers, who are equipped with able counsel and other experts in the field, while the policyholders, who generally play no role in the drafting of such contracts are, in vast majority, not informed in the obscurities of insurance expertise and not equipped to understand other than plain language. Id. But [t]he canon of construction known as contra proferentum  that ambiguities in an insurance contract should be construed against the insurer who drafted the contract  is traditionally used only in cases of doubt where other factors are not decisive. United States v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 327 U.S.App. D.C. 383, 389 n. 11, 131 F.3d at 1037, 1043 n. 11 (1997) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 206 cmt. a (1979)). We have stated that this canon does not require courts to indulge in forced constructions to create an obligation against the insurer. . . . Boggs v. Motors Ins. Corp., 139 A.2d 733, 735 (D.C.1958). We recently had occasion to capsulize the governing principles as follows: Since insurance contracts are written exclusively by insurers, courts generally interpret any ambiguous provisions in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the purchaser of the policy. However, when such contracts are clear and unambiguous, they will be enforced by the courts as written, so long as they do not violate a statute or public policy. Smalls v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 678 A.2d 32, 35 (D.C.1996) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The burden is on USAA to prove that the loss falls within an exclusion. Lang v. F.G. Arwood & Co., 65 A.2d 194, 196 (D.C.1949); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 65 App. D.C. 129, 134, 81 F.2d 263, 268 (D.C.Cir.1935). Where an insurer attempts to avoid liability under an insurance policy on the ground that the loss for which recovery is sought is covered by some exclusionary clause, the burden is on the insurer to prove the facts which bring the case within the specified exception. Krug v. Millers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Ill., 209 Kan. 111, 495 P.2d 949, 954-55 (1972) (citation omitted). [3]