The following excerpt is from Seymour v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 990 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1993):
[T]erms in ERISA insurance policies [are interpreted] "in an ordinary and popular sense as would a [person] of average intelligence and experience." [The court] will "not artificially create ambiguity where none exists." "If a reasonable interpretation favors the insurer and any other interpretation would be strained, no compulsion exists to torture or twist the language of the policy."
Evans v. Safeco Life Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1990) (citations omitted).
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.