Coverage by admission

There are probably three things from my first year of law school I could do without having to think about again. One is the Rule Against Perpetuities. The second is the Statute of Frauds. The third is the parol evidence rule. I'm pretty safe on the first one, and seldom have to worry about the second. But the third lurks around insurance coverage law like some kind of heavy-breathing beast at the edge of the firelight. It may not go by its rightful name, but questions dealing with the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to prove the meaning of terms in an insurance contract are in fact parol evidence rule questions. In contract law, the parol evidence rule states that extrinsic evidence, usually of prior negotiations, is not admissible in interpreting a fully integrated contract unle