The doctrine of reasonable expectations under a standardized insurance contract was recently explained by a Ninth Circuit panel in a case arising under Arizona law:
In Arizona, courts apply the reasonable expectations doctrine to claims based on standardized insurance contracts. [Citations omitted.] Arizona courts generally limit the application of the doctrine to four contexts:
1. Where the contract terms, although not ambiguous to the court, cannot be understood by the reasonably intelligent consumer who might check on his or her rights, the court will interpret them in light of the objective, reasonable expectations of the average insured;
2. Where the insured did not receive full and adequate notice of the term in question, and the provision is either unusual or unexpected, or one that emasculates apparent coverage;
3. Where some activity which can be reasonably attributed to the insurer would create an objective impression of coverage in the mind of a reasonable insured;
4. Where some activity reasonably attributable to the insurer has induced a particular insured reasonably to believe that he has coverage, although such coverage is expressly and unambiguously denied by the policy.
Gordinier v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 742 P.2d 277, 283-84 (Ariz. 1987) (internal citations omitted).
Gregorio v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3890517 *1-*2 (9th Cir. July 30, 2013). Unfortunately for the Plaintiff in that case, Ms. Cecilia V. Gregorio, "Gregorio's claim falls into none of these categories." Gregorio v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3890517 *2 (9th Cir. July 30, 2013).
Please Read The Disclaimer. Copyright © 2013 Dennis J. Wall. No claim to original U.S. Government works.