California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cal-Farm Ins. Co. v. Tac Exterminators, Inc., 172 Cal.App.3d 564, 218 Cal.Rptr. 407 (Cal. App. 1985):
The exclusions clauses at issue are found under a section labeled "Exclusions" in bold face; are of identical size and intensity of the rest of the policy; and are divided into two columns on the page so as not to be a dense pack. But in any event, exclusion clauses do not fail merely because of the density of verbiage. (Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern California, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 722, 193 Cal.Rptr. 632.) Therefore, as a matter of law, we find the exclusions conspicuous.
The next question is whether the exclusions were "plain and clear," and therefore applicable to the instant case. The trial court found the clauses ambiguous and therefore inapplicable. When as here, the trial court interpreted the contract without aid of extrinsic evidence, the appellate court is not bound by the findings of the trial court. On the contrary, it is the duty of the appellate court to make its own independent determination of the meaning of the language of the contract at issue. (Schmidt v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra, 268 Cal.App.2d at p. 738, 74 Cal.Rptr. 367.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.