Insurance jurisprudence is the interpretation and application of insurance laws by courts in common law jurisdictions. It is based on both statutory law and case law, which provides guidance for insurance attorneys in litigation. Case law is built on precedents and lawyers often search for similar cases to support their arguments. Legal researchers use keywords and search terms to find relevant case law. Insurance attorneys focus on specific areas of insurance jurisprudence, but differences do not invalidate the jurisprudence.
Insurance jurisprudence is the body of opinion of the courts of a common law jurisdiction applying and interpreting insurance laws. The common law system, which underlies the legal structure of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and Australia, among others, is centered on the convergence of two types of law. Statutory law, or “black letter” law, is law as mandated by the legislature or parliament. Case law is the evolving body of court opinion that applies government statutes to certain factual scenarios and provides guidance on how statutes should be interpreted. In its broadest sense, the term “insurance case law” refers to the final decision of any court dealing with an insurance dispute. In most cases, insurance jurisprudence is broken down by jurisdiction, as well as by primary disciplinary area.
Researching insurance law is an important part of any insurance attorney’s job. When it comes to litigation, statutory law usually provides the roadmap, but it’s case law that provides point-by-point guidance. The jurisprudence is built on years of judicial expertise and experience, and together they form the generally authoritative view of how written laws should be applied to certain factual scenarios and what these laws mean for daily life.
Most case law is based on a system of precedents. If a court decides how a particular element of statutory law should apply to a specific set of facts, lower courts are usually required to follow that direction. Courts of the same level are generally required to regard interpretation as influential. The insurance precedent is no different.
Of course, two cases rarely contain identical patterns of fact. Attorneys representing parties in court disputes will often seek case law relating to similar facts or circumstances and argue that the reasoning is parallel enough to be persuasive. In insurance lawsuits, this usually means looking for cases that involved the same type of insurance policies, applied the same local rules, or interested parties that filed similar types of insurance claims.
Most of the time, insurance professionals and lawyers focus their study on a narrow sector of current insurance jurisprudence. For example, attorneys who tailor their practices to auto insurance cases won’t normally be interested in researching homeowner’s insurance law. Similarly, attorneys representing indemnity companies can look beyond bad faith medical insurance case law. However, differences do not necessarily mean that a jurisprudence is invalid.
Most lawyers and legal researchers conduct case law research using keywords and search terms, both online and in legal opinion collections. Many case law search tools, especially online ones, will allow lawyers to create search algorithms to find case law from a variety of fields that pertain to certain specific details. In insurance case law, this can be as simple as the type of claim and the relevant jurisdiction, or as broad as the age of the claimant, the amount of the claim, and even the brand of insurance in question. Even if several insurance cases seem unrelated at first glance, lawyers may be able to weave factual similarities into a compelling argument. This type of interrelation and the consequent possibilities of inference are characteristic of jurisprudence in all disciplines.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
