Who doesn't like a well-written judicial decision? Especially when the case is about insurance coverage?
In ECB USA, Inc. v. Chubb Ins. Co. of New Jersey (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2021), US District Court Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. opened with this beauty:
As a general matter, insurance policies and insurance salesmen have long been the butt of jokes. The former are not known for beautiful prose nor the latter for exciting conversation. But insurance contracts can provide fodder for scores of attorneys, grammarians, and logophiles, where, as here, the meaning of one phrase and the placement (or omission) of one comma can make the difference between coverage and nothing.
The policy in question covered “Management consulting services,” which were defined as “services directed toward expertise in banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery and strategy planning for financial institutions.”
Chubb argued that "for financial institutions" modified the entire series--banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery, and strategy planning. The policyholder argued that the lack of a comma meant that "for financial institutions" applied only to "asset recovery and strategy planning", the last term in the series.
The court agree with Chubb, citing a 1971 SCOTUS decision which noted that while “commas at the end of series can avoid ambiguity...[the] use of such commas is discretionary”.
#iamalogophile
#punctuationmatters
#thediscretionarycomma
#theseriesqualifiercanonrocks