A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit makes clear that federal courts in California must be willing to look beyond the four corners of an insurance policy when settling insurance disputes, McGuireWoods Los Angeles partner Kirk Pasich wrote in a June 23, 2026, article in the Daily Journal.
Pasich, co-leader of McGuireWoods’ Insurance Recovery Practice Group, wrote that California’s courts have long seen the value in letting parties admit extrinsic evidence — anything besides an insurance policy’s own words — to help make sense of those words’ meanings. In its April 2026 opinion in County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the county’s favor, in part, because of extrinsic evidence it offered to support its interpretation of an ambiguous policy.
The Ninth Circuit “confirmed that if parties offer extrinsic evidence to support their interpretation of an insurance policy, a court must at least provisionally consider that evidence,” Pasich wrote. “Equally important, the court confirmed that the drafting history of insurance policies, secondary commentaries and the opinions of an insurer’s employees can be considered.”