ABSTRACT
The particular policy and its interpretation is what count most but Bermuda Form policies share certain similarities. The courts' overriding aim in policy interpretation has often been said to be to find the true intention of the parties. In the event of inconsistency in the ordinary meaning of words in different parts of the contract, in accordance with the general rule courts seek the meaning that best reflects the intention of the parties. If it is clear that parties intended not the ordinary meaning but a special meaning, the latter applies. Unless there is ambiguity, the court must give wording the interpretation indicated, however unreasonable it seems to be — unless it can be described as absurd. Until 1997 it appeared that, apart from evidence of a special meaning, the 'parol evidence rule' allowed courts to look outside the confines of the contract itself only if the apparent meaning was ambiguous or absurd.
