It is also possible that, on occasions, a court can look beyond the express terms of a contract to imply terms to fill a gap left by the assured and the underwriter.

This is a very uncertain process and not to be recommended to the parties as a method of supplementing the terms of the contract Parties frequently seek such relief, but the courts are generally reluctant to allow it. In order to imply a term into a contract, the party must show that the term is necessary to give effect to the contract, is consistent with the express terms of the contract and would have been agreed to by both parties at the time of entering into the contract. For example, a term may be implied by the court, in the absence of an express term, that the assured is required to notify the insurer of a claim within a reasonable period of the loss occurring. The term may be implied on the basis that a course of dealing existed between the parties or that it was usual market practice to include such a term in ARPI or that the contract was unworkable without such a term-therefore the parties must have intended it to be included.

In the case of true ambiguity (where the ARPI is capable of more than one sensible meaning) the court uses various rules to assist it which are discussed briefly below. These are not principles of law but simply aids to assist the court.