1.3 Interpretation Based on the Plain, Ordinary, or Popular Sense of the Words Used

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Insurance policies will be construed in a reasonable manner by the courts, giving ordinary meaning and effect to the terms used therein.^[25] The policy language will be given that meaning which its wording conveys to the ordinary person conversant with the standard meanings of the English language.^[26]

Courts will not expand the language of the policy beyond its plain and ordinary meaning,^[27] nor will they add to the language something that the parties have not expressed.^[28] Courts will not disregard the clear and plain language of the policy in the absence of overriding statutory authority.^[29]

Where policy language is given standard meanings and a lack of coverage is the result, the court will not "torture,"^[30] pervert, or do violence^[31] to the policy language to create ambiguity to avoid a hard result.^[32] Strained or unnatural constructions of the policy will be avoided by the court.^[33] In Lawrence v. Beneficial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.,^[34] the court stated:

We will not twist an ordinary, necessary and logical drafting "inconsistency" into an ambiguity. Where words are given standard meanings and a lack of coverage is the result, the language should not be treated so as to create ambiguity which would result in the opposite of what was so expressed.^[35]

Undefined terms will be defined in common, everyday language rather than in highly technical terms or as statutes would define them.^[36] Undefined terms will be given a "common sense" meaning that the average person would give them.^[37] If a policy term is susceptible of more than one reasonable meaning, the interpretation that supports coverage will be utilized.

--------

Notes:

[25]Nethers, 119 Ariz. 405, 581 P.2d 250; Brenner v. Aetna Ins. Co., 8 Ariz. App. 272...