Contra Proferentum Does Not Apply to a Clear and Unambiguous Policy

No Coverage Before Policy In Effect

People who sue insurance companies seem to forget that an insurance policy is a contract – not an entitlement provided by a government. Insurance contracts must be read as a whole document and all clear and unambiguous terms must be applied as written.

In Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Sergey Pastukov, No. 18-11129, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit, (October 10, 2018) the Eleventh Circuit was asked to provide insurance coverage for Sergey Pastukov who was involved in a truck accident on May 14, 2015 before a policy with Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company was in effect.

Atlantic Specialty denied his claim and later sought a declaratory judgment to establish that it was not obligated to cover his accident. The district court agreed and granted judgment in Atlantic Specialty’s favor.

Before the district court, Atlantic Specialty provided three reasons for which it was not obligated to provide coverage for Mr. Pastukov’s accident. First, it argued that his claim was not covered because his loss occurred before coverage began. Second, it argued that he was not eligible for coverage under the policy because he did not meet the requirements of a “Contract Driver” or an “Owner-Operator.” Finally, it asserted that his claim was barred by the known loss doctrine.

The district court adopted the second basis, finding that Mr. Pastukov was never eligible for coverage. It rejected Mr. Pastukov’s contention that the contract’s terms were ambiguous and held that there is “no interpretation of the language of the [Certificate of Insurance] under which [he] qualifies for coverage, either as a Contract Driver or an Owner-Operator.”

THE POLICY

According to the insurance contract, under the provision entitled “Your Coverage Effective Date,” Mr. Pastukov’s “coverage under the Policy beg[an] on the latest of:”

(1) the policy effective date

(2) the date you become a member of an eligible class as described above; or

(3) the date upon which the program administrator or its designee approves your fully completed and signed enrollment form.

Mr. Pastukov’s Policy stated an effective date of May 14, 2015. His coverage began, however, when the Program Administrator approved his application on May 29, 2015.

ANALYSIS

Under Florida law, insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning. The policy terms should be given their plain and unambiguous meaning as understood by the man-on-the-street. If the relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and another limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ambiguous. If, however, the policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms whether it is a basic policy provision or an exclusionary provision.

This provision is consistent with Florida law. Florida recognizes that generally, the parties to a contract are competent to fix the effective date. The ability of the parties to agree upon which date, or event, coverage begins is also recognized by the leading treatises. The effective date is a key concept because it defines when the insured has contractual rights that can be enforced. As a general rule, the risk attaches as of the time actually agreed upon or understood by the parties.

A court may not, as Pastukov argued, focus on portions of the contract in isolation. Rather, the court must read the policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.

The clear terms of the insurance policy contemplate that “coverage under the Policy beg[an] on the latest of” three events. The latest event was the approval of his application on May 29.

Mr. Pastukov argued that the maxim that the court should construe insurance policy language in favor of the insured. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that this principle (sometimes called Contra Proferentum) does not apply because the contract language is clear.

Only if a provision is ambiguous after considering the policy as a whole will a court construe the ambiguous provision against the insurer in favor of coverage.

ZALMA OPINION

The Eleventh Circuit read the contract as a whole. It did not use the same reason as did the District Court since it found there was no policy in effect at the time of the loss and had no need to look to the other two grounds on which Atlantic based its conclusion there was no coverage. There can never be coverage under a policy before it comes into effect.