Plain Meaning Rule

How to read and figure out the law or Insurance Policy Provisions – Evidence of Coverage

Read the Statute – Policy,  Read the Statute – Policy,  Read the Statute – Policy!”

The language of the text of the statute or  Evidence of Coverage  should serve as the starting point for any inquiry into its meaning.    To properly understand and interpret a statute, [first] you must read the text closely, keeping in mind that your initial understanding of the text may not be the only plausible interpretation of the statute or even the correct one, per Justice Felix Frankfurter . Guide to Reading & Interpreting  *  American Society of Healthcare Risk Management    and * Wikipedia
The way I heard it, either in my one year of correspondence law school or two years of beginners Talmud was:
Read the law or Insurance Policy three times, then when you think you understand it, read it again.

The starting point in statutory construction is the language of the statute – Evidence of Coverage itself. The Supreme Court often recites the “plain meaning rule,”  as in, King vs Burwell Subsidies in Health Care.Gov upheld, that, if the language of the statute is clear, there is no need to look outside the statute to its legislative history in order to ascertain the statute’s meaning.

Parol Evidence Rule Wikipedia – Contract stands by itself – can’t bring up discussions or agreements that were prior to actually signing the written Contract

The plain meaning of the contract will be followed where the words used—whether written or oral—have a clear and unambiguous meaning. Words are given their ordinary meaning; technical terms are given their technical meaning; and local, cultural, or Trade Usage of terms are recognized as applicable. The circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract are also admissible to aid in the interpretation.  West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

A cardinal rule of construction is that a statute should be read as a

Harmonious Whole,

with its various parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purposes.  A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”

In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute.” In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[3]

  1. Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
  2. “…state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress…”

Supreme Court – FINAL Ruling – Plain Meaning – No Jiggery Pokery 47 Pages, view our highlights, annotations & bookmarks

President Trump
Health Care is VERY complicated
He should have asked me

King v Burwell – Subsidies Upheld – ScotusCare –
Plain Meaning Rule – Interpretive Jiggery Pokery

Justice Scalia Jiggery Pokery

More on Jiggery Pokery

Get Instant Individual & Family Quotes including Subsidy Calculation
Get Instant Individual & Family Quotes including Subsidy Calculation

Open Enrollment till January 31st

Click here for Special Enrollment Opportunities

Extensive Video explanation of how to use all features of our quote engine

Read our other clients testimonials and/or

write one 

Read and or write a testimonial

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.