What if courts used artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the plain meaning of undefined terms, including terms in insurance policies? Eleventh Circuit Judge Newsom ponders that very question in his concurring opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, decided May 28, 2024. In a recent Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog post discussing the intersection of AI and insurance, insurance coverage partner Michael S. Levine and associate Alex D. Pappas unpack Judge Newsom’s concurring opinion. In doing so, they not only discuss the pros and cons of using AI to discern the plain meaning of certain words and phrases, but they discuss whether AI can answer a vexing question on the minds of insurers and policyholders alike: what is AI and how should it be defined?
Insurance coverage lawsuits often hinge on the plain and ordinary meaning of specific words or phrases. But not every word in an insurance policy can be defined. Yet without stable and predictable definitions, neither policyholders nor insurers can establish a clear and consistent scope of coverage. In a recent concurring opinion, Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) could help resolve these definitional debates. His opinion in Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, No. 22-12581, 2024 WL 2717700 (11th Cir. May 28, 2024) highlights the pros and cons of calling upon technology to supply plain meaning.
This approach may even offer promise for a fundamental issue plaguing the insurability of AI risk, which we discussed last month. That is, how to define AI to ensure a functional and predictable scope of coverage?
LLMs as a Tool in the Interpretive Toolkit
In Snell, an insured sought coverage under a Commercial General Liability policy in connection with a lawsuit brought after a child sustained injuries while using an in-ground trampoline. The insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that Snell, a landscaper, negligently installed the trampoline in a client’s backyard. The district court found that coverage would turn on whether installation of the trampoline amounted to “landscaping,” as that term was used in the policy. But the policy did not supply a definition for the term “landscaping.” The court, therefore, turned to the “common, everyday meaning” of the term, which the district court found to not include trampoline installation.
The Eleventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s decision based on Alabama-law specific grounds unrelated to the meaning of “landscaping.” Yet, of particular note, in a concurring opinion, Judge Newsom suggested that LLMs like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude could help discern the ordinary meaning of undefined words in legal instruments, including insurance policies.
Judge Newsom identified several benefits to using LLMs for this purpose. LLMs train on vast amounts of ordinary-language data—much more than might be available through a dictionary—making them particularly adept at determining common usage. They understand context, which helps detect nuanced language patterns. LLMs are also increasingly accessible, making their use an inexpensive research tool for judges, lawyers and ordinary citizens. In addition, using LLMs to facilitate ordinary meaning interpretation enhances the transparency of the interpreting process because queries and outputs from LLMs can be fully disclosed to the public.
Judge Newsom also pointed out potential drawbacks. LLMs can “hallucinate” and generate incorrect information at times. They might not fully capture offline speech, potentially missing how underrepresented groups use language. There is also the risk that lawyers, judges or litigants may try to manipulate LLMs to favor their preferred interpretation. Moreover, over-reliance on LLMs could lead to dystopian “robo judges.
Despite these concerns, Judge Newsom suggests that AI could be another tool in the judiciary’s toolbox, alongside dictionaries and semantic canons.
Can LLMs Define AI?
As discussed previously, we have identified the general inability to clearly and uniformly define “AI” for purposes of insuring AI risks. Following Judge Newsom’s suggestion, we asked ChatGPT to provide a stable and predictable definition of AI for use in insurance policies to answer the question posed in our last article. That is, how should insurance policies define AI to ensure a functional scope of coverage? Here’s ChatGPT’s response:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the capability of a machine to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and natural language understanding. AI systems include technologies like machine learning algorithms, neural networks, and natural language processing, which enable these machines to analyze data, recognize patterns, and make decisions or predictions based on that analysis.
ChatGPT even explained why its definition is a good one. It explained that this definition is comprehensive, covering all AI capabilities and ensuring all current and foreseeable technologies are included. It is clear and specific, identifying key components of AI systems, and technologically neutral, making it adaptable to future advancements. By focusing on AI’s functional aspects, it aligns with practical insurance concerns. This definition provides a clear framework, reducing disputes and aligning with existing legal frameworks, making it easier to use in legal contexts. It also minimizes differing interpretations, leading to more straightforward claims processes and fewer litigation risks. Whether this AI-generated definition or some iteration might provide a functional definition for purposes of insurance remains to be seen.
Conclusion
As policyholders and insurers work to resolve the age-old task of supplying meaning to undefined terms, or defining new risks like those posed by AI, they might find it useful to follow Judge Newsom’s recommendation and use AI among the other tools in their toolkits to resolve definitional debates. For now, however, while landscapers and acrobats can rest assured knowing that trampolines are not landscaping (at least in the 11th Circuit), the more vexing insurance-related AI issue remains: what is AI?
- Partner
Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.
Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...
- Associate
Alex counsels clients on all aspects of insurance coverage. He guides them in obtaining appropriate coverage and resolving disputes over coverage, including in litigation and arbitration.
Before joining Hunton Andrews Kurth ...
The Hunton Andrews Kurth Blockchain Blog features opinions and legal analysis as we follow the development and use of distributed ledger technology known as the blockchain.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
- 2019 Leaders’ Declaration
- 2020 National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (the 2020 Strategy)
- Advancing Innovation to Assist Law Enforcement Act
- Airdrops
- AML compliance program
- AML/CFT
- anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies
- Anti-Money Laundering
- Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA)
- Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
- Antifraud
- Aon and Marsh
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Australia
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
- Automated Clearing House (ACH)
- Bank of England
- Bank Secrecy Act
- Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
- Bank Term Fund Program
- Bermuda
- Biden Administration
- BIS
- Bitcoin
- Bitcoin Cash
- Bitfinex
- BitLicense
- Blockchain
- Blockchain Incubators
- Blockchain Legislation
- Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
- Blockchain Technology Act
- Brazil
- Breach of Contract
- Broker-Dealer
- Broker-Dealers
- BSA
- BSA Enforcement
- BTFP
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- California
- Canada
- Captive Insurance
- CCPA
- Celebrity Endorsers
- Central Bank
- Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)
- CFTC
- Chapter 15
- China
- Christopher Giancarlo
- Civil Enforcement
- Class Actions
- Clearweb
- Colorado
- Commissioner
- Commodity Exchange Act
- Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Complaint Bulletin
- Compliance
- Compliance Note
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- Consumer Protection
- Convertible Virtual Currency
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)
- Council of Institutional Investors
- Council of the European Union
- Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- crypto arbitrage trading accounts
- Crypto Assets
- crypto bank
- crypto custody
- Crypto Hackers
- Crypto Mining
- Crypto-commodity
- Crypto-currency
- Cryptoassets
- Cryptocurrency
- Cryptopia Limited
- Cryptosweep
- CVCs
- cybercrime
- Cybersecurity
- Dalia Blass
- DAO Report
- Darknet
- darknet marketplaces
- Data Privacy
- Data Protection Authority
- Davos
- decentralized finance (DeFi)
- DeFi
- Del. Michael San Nicolas
- Delaware
- Department of Business and Industry
- Department of Justice
- Department of Treasury
- DFS
- Digital Asset
- Digital Asset Securities
- Digital Assets
- Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022
- digital currency
- digital currency ATM operators
- digital currency exchangers
- digital currency flows
- Digital Financial Assets Law (the Act)
- Digital Token Act
- digital token sales
- Digital Tokens
- Distributed Ledger
- Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)
- Dodd-Frank
- DOJ
- Economic Sanctions
- EDPB
- Eleventh Circuit
- Endorsement Guides
- Enforcement Action
- ePrivacy
- Ether
- Ether Classic
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Regulation
- European Central Bank
- European Commission
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Traded Fund
- FDIC
- Federal Election Commission
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Board
- Federal Trade Commission
- FedNow
- fiat currency MSBs
- Fiat-Backed
- Fight Illicit Networks and Detect Trafficking Act
- Figure Lending LLC
- Final Guidance
- Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
- Financial Privacy
- Financial Stability Board
- Financial Stability Oversight Council
- Financial Stability Report
- Financial Technology Protection Act
- FinCEN
- FINRA
- FinTech
- Florida
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
- Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA)
- Form BE-12
- fractional interests
- FTC
- Gemini Dollar
- Gemini Trust Company
- Global Consortium for Digital Currency Governance
- Group of Seven
- Group of Twenty (G20) Finance Ministers
- H.R. 5635
- Hard Fork
- Heath Tarbert
- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
- Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act
- House of Representatives
- House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee
- Howey
- Howey test
- IEO
- iFinex Inc.
- Illinois
- India
- Information Sheet 225
- Initial Chain Offering
- initial exchange offerings (IEOs)
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- International
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Investor Protection
- IRS
- Jefferies Funding LLC
- Kenneth Blanco
- KYC/AML requirements
- Lael Brainard
- Large Platform Utility
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liechtenstein Parliament
- liquidity
- Litecoin
- Litigation
- Louisiana
- Ltd.
- Malicious Cyber Activity
- Malicious Cyber Actor
- managed stablecoin
- Martin Act
- Maryland
- Metaverse
- model rule
- Monetary Policy
- Money Laundering
- Money Service Business
- money services businesses (MSBs)
- Mortgages
- Multi-Level Marketing Program (MLM)
- Mutual Fund
- Nakamoto
- narcotics
- NASAA
- Nebraska
- network maturity
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)
- New Zealand
- NFT (Non-Fungible Token)
- NFTs
- Non-fungible tokens
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- NY Department of Financial Services
- OFAC
- Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Patent
- Paxos Standard
- Paxos Trust Company
- peer-to-peer exchangers
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Information
- President’s Working Group (PWG)
- Privacy
- privacy coins
- Provenance.io
- Proxy Voting
- Public Blockchain
- rapid settlement
- real estate
- Regulation and Enforcement
- Rep. Sylvia Garcia
- Rescission
- Retail
- Ripple
- Ripple Labs
- Rule 233-1
- Russia
- Sanctions
- Sanctions Compliance Program (SHP)
- SAR lookback review
- SD8 coins
- SDN List
- SEC
- SEC crypto-securities
- SEC registration
- Securities
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Securities Exchange Commission
- security tokens
- Self-disclosure
- Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs
- Shareholder
- Shareholders
- SIFI
- Signature Bank
- Silicon Valley Bank
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Spencer Dinwiddie
- stablecoins
- Stablecoins are Securities Act of 2019
- State-Sponsored Malicious Cyber Groups
- Suspicious Activity Report
- suspicious activity reporting (SARs)
- SVB
- SWIFT messaging system
- Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
- Switzerland
- synthetic hegemonic currency
- Taxation
- Templum
- Tennessee
- Terrorist Financing
- Tether Limited
- Texas
- Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)
- Texas Senate Bill 1859
- Texas Senate Bill 1971
- The World Bank
- three-year safe harbor
- Token and TT Service Provider Act
- token developers
- token transfer limits
- tokenization
- tokenized assets
- Trademark
- Travel Rule
- Trump Administration
- TT Identifier
- TT System
- TVTG
- U.S. Virtual Currency Market and Regulatory Competitiveness Act of 2019
- UCC Article 12
- UK Tax Rules
- unhosted wallets
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United Kingdom (UK)
- United Specialty Insurance Company
- United States Bankruptcy Code
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- US central bank digital currency (US CBDC)
- US Department of the Treasury
- US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- US dollar
- US Treasury
- USTR
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Virtual Asset Service Providers
- Virtual currencies
- Virtual Currency
- Virtual Currency Consumer Protection Act of 2019
- Virtual Currency Exchange
- virtual currency license
- Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020
- Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative
- Washington
- Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations
- World Economic Forum
- Wyoming
- XRP
Authors
- Jimmy Bui
- Mayme Donohue
- Nicholas Drews
- Andrew Feiner
- Jason Feingertz
- Hannah Flint
- Kevin E. Gaunt
- Armin Ghiam
- Carleton Goss
- Gregory G. Hesse
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Marysia Laskowski
- Michael S. Levine
- Phyllis H. Marcus
- Lorelie S. Masters
- Patrick M. McDermott
- Uriel A. Mendieta
- Alex D. Pappas
- Daryl B. Robertson
- Natalia San Juan
- Caitlin A. Scipioni