What Do You Mean It's Not Covered: An "Anti-Consumer" Tone to the Decision

The decision so far was fairly simple, if very harsh. It got complicated when several of the supreme court judges wrote an angry dissent to the decision against Amy. They condemned what they called a "sweeping anti-consumer alteration of our longstanding method for interpreting insurance policies." The decision rejected the Texas Supreme Court's own precedents, specifically the 1991 decision -- Gorman v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am. -- which granted policyholders liberal terms for making breach of contract claims against insurance companies. "Ambiguities will now be construed against the insurer only after the court attempts to remove any ambiguity through manipulation of general rules of contract interpretation," the dissenting judges wrote. "While it has never been... the law of Texas that an insured creates an ambiguity merely by filing suit..., now the majority declares that, if the insurer creates an ambiguity by taking away in specific fine print most of the rights accorded the policyholder in the big print, the fine print will control."

Effective date: The date coverage begins for any insured person named in the application. This date is shown on the application. For a newborn child, the effective date will be the birth date of that child. For a person or coverage added to the policy after the effective date, it is the date shown on an amendment which is to be attached to this policy.

The effective date of coverage for each person is shown in the application. Newborn children are frequently covered automatically from the moment of birth, but notification and an additional premium may be required. For additional family members (a new spouse or adopted child), coverage takes effect when the change is attached to the policy.