A Wisconsin litigant argued that the “and” in “and/or”, in the terms of an insurance policy, meant he was covered for skiing unless all 3 of these conditions were met:
“no cover provided whilst skiing in violation of applicable laws, rules or regulations; away from prepared and marked in-bound territories; and/or against the advice of the local ski school or local authoritative body.”
He lost. He might have done better if he had interpreted the clause this way at the start of his case. Or if his own written argument had not also used “and/or” to mean “one or more of”.
Thanks to Clarity member Natasha Costello for pointing out this case.
Redmond v Sirius International Insurance Corporation, US District Court, ED Wisconsin, 7 April 2014.