The importance of context- the implication of Noscitur a sociis Rule

Context becomes very important when decoding a word used in a policy. In other words, the meaning of a word depends always on its context. When the meaning of the word used in a policy is uncertain or nebulous, the court first considers the immediate context of a word. It considers the broader context of the paragraph, section, or policy as a whole if needed.

- 

Context becomes very important when decoding a word used in a policy. In other words, the meaning of a word depends always on its context. When the meaning of the word used in a policy is uncertain or nebulous, the court first considers the immediate context of a word. It considers the broader context of the paragraph, section, or policy as a whole if needed. Noscitur, a sociis, interprets a word in the light of other words. Simply put, the rule' Noscitur a sociis' maintains that a word is explained by the company it keeps. The Latin words "Noscitur" means "is known" and "Sociis" means "by its associates," Noscitur a Sociis is a principle that explains that a particular word or phrase in a statute is based on its context and association with other words or phrases in the same provision or statute.

Interpretation of perilsFlood, inundation, storm, tempest in the light of the above observation

In Young v. Sun Alliance & London Insurance (1977)- The plaintiff's house (Montague Young) was built on a meadow land. The plaintiff insured it with the defendant's insurance company (Sun Alliance & London Insurance) under a household policy seeking protection against damage or destruction from storm, tempest or flood and escape of water from or frost damage to any water, drainage or heating installation. In 1973, water entered the downstairs lavatory and rose to a depth of 3 inches. Young preferred a claim from his insurers for a loss of pound 468 for the cost of work and pound 294 for the cost of redecoration caused to his house no-1 Grange Road, Elstree Herts by Flood - a peril covered in the policy.

The court rejected the claim, holding that the policy intended to cover three types of natural phenomena, which were related not only by the fact they were natural but also by unusual manifestations of those phenomena in that they were accompanied by violence.