Others say “these” refers to the list of excluded incidents under only subparagraph e. They call attention to the typographical arrangement, suggesting that all of the exclusions under 2 would be affected only if the “if any of these” language lined up with the subparagraph letters (a) through (e). As this language actually appears in the policy, it is indented further to line up under the text of subparagraph (e) only.

Which takes precedence, the typography or the reading that is most beneficial to the insured?

Connecticut Subscriber

The typography is as much the drafter's tool as are the words. While words are the most obvious conveyor of meaning, the manner in which they are arranged is central to the author's effort to communicate ideas from one mind to another. As you indeed have observed, one must rearrange the author's spatial pattern in order to have the broader application. Someone else, in a different context, might change a word to arrive at the preferred meaning.

Changing either words or spacing is not allowed after the policy has been issued.

The intent revealed in the typographical arrangement is to limit application of the water damage exception to exclusion “e” alone. In fact, if applied to three of the other four exclusions in this part the effect would be quite broadening. The exclusion of plumbing freeze in certain circumstances would be almost meaningless if subsequent water damage were covered anyway. And a lot of water damage could occur following excluded theft in a dwelling under construction or vandalism in a vacant dwelling.