The district court ruled that brown recluse spiders are insects [pdf]
media.ca11.uscourts.gov
media.ca11.uscourts.gov
> "Alabama law requires courts to construe the terms of an insurance policy according to their ordinary meaning. So unless the context suggests otherwise, the terms of a policy should not be given a technical or scientific meaning"
...
> "Maggie and Cody Robinson’s homeowners insurance policy excluded coverage for property damage caused by insects or vermin, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company cited that exclusion to deny coverage for an infestation of brown recluse spiders in the Robinsons’ home"
...
> "Spiders are “insects” under the ordinary meaning of that term. All dictionaries we have reviewed, both modern and old, list spiders as an example of an “insect.” See, e.g., Insect, Oxford English Dictionary Online."
And then there's like 4 more dictionaries that they checked that all said the same thing
Think of it as the legacy endpoints you have to keep around for your system even though you wouldn't write it that way today.
"Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheless, they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert."
"Both the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper.[5] Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot and bean."
Toy Biz v United States [2] is another great one, especially if you're a nerd (like me) who loves reading the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (e.g. https://twitter.com/asciimike/status/1258780502837932035).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz,_Inc._v._United_States
See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Table_of_fruit_examples
As an aside, I make a mean tomato cobbler. You just have to find a local farmer because most of the macro distributed stuff has been selected for shape and color rather than flavor.
Wat
> In 2001, more than 2,000 brown recluse spiders were removed from a heavily infested home in Kansas, yet the four residents who had lived there for years were never harmed by the spiders, despite many encounters with them.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_recluse_spider#Bite)
You're right - they're not harmless - but I suspect they're not as dangerous as folklore might portray them.
That's what's happened here, and I can't help but see it as another case of insurers once again not paying up because they can get away with it.
If they meant "bugs" they should have either have said "bugs", or should have said "insects and other small lifeforms." I'm sure their lawyers could find a way to be more precise, and it seems reasonable to me to require it of them.
But, well, I'm neither a lawyer nor an insurance expert.
Perhaps. I suspect many of us would reasonably argue, in such a situation, that the category of loss described in the policy is obvious to a reasonable observer, and if, say, an ant infestation is valid grounds for a claim, a spider infestation should be too.
I’m no great fan of the insurance industry, but putting that aside for a moment, it does seem that in terms of the contract language, a sensible conclusion was reached here.
Fortunately a significant amount of negotiation meant that we ended up with a revised agreement we were all happy with ... that would be unlikely if an insurance company is involved.
My point was never the inaccuracy of including spiders as insects, my point was intended to be that the terms in your legal documents may not carry the meanings you expect. I guess that point is lost now.
And to answer your question, I would include "spiders" as "vermin" in circumstances such as this."
You clearly didn't read the actual judgement. It very clearly states Insects and/or vermin. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a reasonable term for 'other small lifeforms'.
The judgment is very clear that it rejects the claims for BOTH the insect and vermin clause, and acknowledges that while spiders are not "scientifically" insects, they are insects according to normal use, and also because of previous case-law.
I guess I should have posted a comment at the time I submitted this, it's probably too late now to make the real point.
However, if you have insurance that matters to you, perhaps it's a good time to go and check every single term in it to make sure the "common sense meaning" matches your understanding.
Edit: Actually, the irony just struck me about being misunderstood in the submission, just as legal terms are misunderstood by "ordinary people" when tested in court. Oh well.
Edit 2: Guessing it won't matter now, as this has fallen off the front page, not doubt having been flagged based on the misunderstanding of its purpose. Again ... oh well.