Policy Wording

[Beagle2000]

Hi,

Looking for an opinion on interpretation of policy wording. The policy relates to a PI policy covering claims made against the insured. The policy covers a company, there is an excess applicable of 5k and the wording states "5,000 each claim/claimant" - the insured has had 3 claims brought against them for this policy 1 claim by 1 individual, and 2 claims by a separate individual. With the wording being a bit vague, would the excess be 10k or 15k on the basis of per claim and per claimant?

[dslippy]

I would say that it is sad that an insurance policy should go cheap on wording.
That said I think it is vague, but three excesses.

[atticus]

I agree.

[des8]

What about the contra proferentem principle?
The wording as posted is unclear and presumably from the policy schedule
Is the policy wording clearer on the matter?

[Beagle2000]

I did consider the principle but it would favour the insured since the insurer put those terms forward so doesn't strictly work in my favour. The extract of wording is sadly the best I have presently, it is from an old legacy PI policy and I'm still battling trying to find the complete wording as the insurer is no longer trading and their book of business sold on. Thanks for your help all

[des8]

If the insurer used ambiguous terms they will be construed against him.

You refer to the policy as "old"
Does this mean it has lapsed?

PI policies are generally written on a "claims made" basis i.e. payment will be made for a claim made during the cover term, regardless of when the incident – or alleged incident – took place.
If they were informed of the circumstances of a possible loss before the expiry of the policy they should probably consider the claim, but one would need the policy wording to be certain