I have a damaged outer wall on my town house. I have filed a claim but the claim was denied because the wall is considered a common element by the insurance company, because I was inadvertently sold a condominium policy. However, according to the insurance company's definition of what is covered the wall would be covered under this part of the definition as written , in my policy word for word: "real property owned soley by you pertaining to the residence premises; property for which you have an insurance responsibility under an Association or Corporation of Property Owneers or Teneants Agreement; or Additional Structures soley owned by you which are located at the residence premises."
The damaged front wall is my property, and is not a common element.
There are a couple of legal doctrines which can be appplied in resolving this ambiguity. One would be the Doctrine of Contra Proferentum, the other, The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations. Which one, if either, would be an avenue of pursuit, according to my situation?
The damaged front wall is my property, and is not a common element.
There are a couple of legal doctrines which can be appplied in resolving this ambiguity. One would be the Doctrine of Contra Proferentum, the other, The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations. Which one, if either, would be an avenue of pursuit, according to my situation?