California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Baldwin v. AAA N. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exch., 1 Cal.App.5th 545, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 433 (Cal. App. 2016):
to every part of the policy (Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1109, 1115, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 647, 988 P.2d 568 ). This includes giving effect to exclusions. (See, e.g., Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747, 759, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 110 P.3d 903 [Insurance companies may exclude coverage for particular damages]; Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy Number A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Company (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 721, 729, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 898 [The plain language of an exclusion must be respected].) As noted, we do not find the exclusion ambiguous. Nor is it contradictory to the loss provisions. It merely limits their scope.
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.