Which rule applies when dealing with inconsistencies in policy wordings?

The correct answer is that an express term overrules any implied term, which highlights a foundational principle in contract law and insurance policy interpretation. This principle asserts that when a specific term in a policy is explicitly stated, it carries more weight than general or implied terms. This ensures clarity and certainty in the interpretation of the contract, enabling parties to understand their rights and obligations more clearly.

In the context of insurance policies, express terms may include specific coverage details, exclusions, or conditions that are written in clear language. These terms are intended to provide clear guidance regarding what is covered and what is not, allowing policyholders to understand the intent of the contract. As such, when a conflict arises between an express term and any implied term (which may arise from common law, customary practices, or assumptions about the contract), the express term prevails, reinforcing the importance of precise language in insurance agreements.

The other options do not accurately represent the hierarchy of policy elements. For instance, a handwritten endorsement can actually be quite significant, often taking precedence because it demonstrates the specific intent of the parties to the contract. Similarly, the suggestion that printed terms always take priority over endorsements is misleading, as endorsements are typically designed to modify or clarify existing terms within the policy. Lastly,