Litigation and Regulatory Compliance

Insurance

Publications

Two Small Words, One Great Divide

November 1, 2015 Published Work
Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently joined the majority of other jurisdictions that in holding that a policy providing an exclusion for an employee of "the insured" meant an employee of the insured seeking coverage under the policy, but not of any of the other insureds under the policy, or even of the Named Insured.

Even the smallest words can carry controlling meaning. At least, that's what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. Politsopoulos, where it joined the majority of other jurisdictions that have considered the issue in holding that a policy providing an exclusion for an employee of "the insured" meant an employee of the insured seeking coverage under the policy, but not of any of the other insureds under the policy, or even of the Named Insured.

To read the full article, click on the printable PDF link at the top of bottom of this page.

Resources