This article's fundamental premise is that, over the past three decades, despite all the debate and confusion surrounding the underlying theory and practice of the insurance law doctrine of reasonable expectations, a modem consensus approach has finally emerged within the academic community and the courts and among insurance law practitioners involving a realistic and viable application of the doctrine to the needs of contemporaryground" synthesis of traditional, objective, and contractually based reasonable expectations principles grafted onto elements of the more modem Keeton formulation of the doctrine. Moreover, this realistic consensus approach to the doctrine of reasonable expectations is both theoretically and practically defensible since, as I have argued in two previous articles,, contemporary legal rules of insurance contract interpretation must be both theoretically sound and have practical application.
To quote an oft-cited axiom of early entertainment moguls: "Great idea! But will it play in Peoria?" Arguably, this realistic consensus approach to the insurance law doctrine of reasonable expectations does indeed play equally well in Los Angeles, Peoria, Cleveland, Dallas, Miami, New York, and most other American cities and towns. The remainder of this article will analyze, discuss, and demonstrate the viability and practicality of this realistic consensus approach to the insurance law doctrine of reasonable expectations.
Peter Nash Swisher, A Realistic Consensus Approach to the Insurance Law Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations, 35 Tort & Ins. L.J. 729 (2000).