RLLI Section 3

1. Does it make sense for contract law to allegedly embrace a contextual approach and insurance law to allegedly embrace a plain meaning approach? Look for instances in the RLLI where the Reporters appear to prefer the contextual approach.

2. The comments say that the following is admissible to interpret a contract even under the plain meaning approach: (a) dictionaries, court decisions, statutes and regulations, secondary legal authority such as treatises and law-review articles and (b) custom, practice and usage in the insurance industry. So what isn't permitted under the plain meaning approach, according to the Reporters?

3. One of the arguments in favor of plain meaning is that it reduces the scope and expense of a judicial inquiry otherwise needed to figure out the "true meaning" in full context. The Reporters take an expansive view of plain meaning but contend that it will not increase the scope and expensive of judicial inquiry. Are they persuasive?

4. Suppose a policy provision has two possible meanings when applied to a claim. The judge believes it 70% likely that Meaning 1 was intended and 30% likely that Meaning 2 was intended. Meaning 1 favors the insurer; Meaning 2 favors the insured. Which Meaning should the judge apply under the Restatement approach? What pressures does this place on drafters?

5. What is the position of the reporters on the safety of eco-tourism?

6. What is the view of the Reporters on the extent to which section 3 is consistent or inconsistent with the "reasonable expectations principle?" Does it matter if one distinguishes the strong form of the principle from the weak form? 

7. What is the point of the Reporter's Note paragraph that begins, "Many legal commentators have long advocated a more contextual approach"? Where is the paragraph that discusses the many legal commentators who have opposed a more contextual approach?

8. The Reporters Notes claim it is consistent with this section to admit an insurance industry memorandum to regulators on the meaning of a provision. Do you agree?

9. In Reporters Note paragraph h, the following is stated: "Note that because, according to § 2(3), "the ordinary rules of contract interpretation apply to the interpretation of liability insurance policies," Restatement Second, Contracts § 211(3) (AM. LAW INST. 1981) supplies an important rule regarding the enforceability of standard-form terms:  "Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent [to a standard form contract] would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement." Does this undercut the purported rejection of strong form reasonable expectations doctrine?