How have courts interpreted the doctrine of ambiguity in the context of a personal injury claim?

to reform a will through the doctrine of ambiguity. (Cf. Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 57, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 939 P.2d 766 [in rejecting the contention that requiring only a preponderance of the evidence to establish an insurer's right to reimbursement will open the floodgates of litigation, the court noted that the floodgates' have been open for quite some time].) The task of deciding whether the evidence establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a mistake was made in the drafting of the will is a relatively small additional burden, because the court is already evaluating the evidence's probative value to determine the existence of an ambiguity.¹³ To the extent additional claims are made that are based on a theory of mistake rather than a theory of ambiguity, the heightened evidentiary standard will help the probate court to filter out weak claims. Finally, fear of additional judicial burdens is not an adequate reason to deny relief that would serve the paramount

[190 Cal.Rptr.3d 312]

purpose of distributing property in accordance with the testator's intent. (See Buss, at p. 58, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 939 P.2d 766 [acknowledging that the future might bring more claims for reimbursement, [b]ut the possible invocation of this rightor any otheris not a sufficient basis for its abrogation or disapproval]; Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159, 171, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1

[61 Cal.4th 893]