A recent First Circuit decision underscores the importance of carefully analyzing how endorsements interact with underlying policy provisions, particularly in claims-made policies involving related claims language. The ruling highlights that courts will generally seek to harmonize endorsements and base policy terms unless the endorsement clearly and expressly conflicts with the underlying policy language.
Bracewell’s Carlton Wilde told Law360 that the policyholder in the case faced an uphill battle because the employment practices liability endorsement was broad enough to encompass administrative proceedings and worked alongside an equally broad related claims provision.
He said that relying on the maxim that an endorsement prevails over the text was not enough, and suggested that other policyholders in a similar position take care to fully brief the textual conflict and at least develop a reasonable basis for the court to find ambiguity in the policy terms.