Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColinWright | Hacker News Reader

If I had an insurance policy that excluded insect infestation, then I had a spider infestation, and the the insurers said ... "Oh, we meant bug infestation, spiders are really a sort of insect", then I would genuinely be outraged.

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.

View on HN

Okay, turn the hypothetical around. Let’s say you (generic “you”) had an insurance policy that covered you for loss caused by insect and vermin infestations, and the insurance company refused to pay after a spider infestation. Would you stoically accept the insurance company’s position? Maybe you would wouldn’t even file a claim in the first place, to demonstrate a commitment to scientifically precise language in insurance policies.

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.

Actually, I've been bitten (if you'll pardon the pun) by this, not in the case of insurance, but in the case of contract law. I and my lawyers knew the definitions in question, and were content that we had an understanding, only to discover later, during a dispute, that the technical meanings of various terms and definitions were being overturned in favour of "common understanding."

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."

> If they meant "bugs" they should have either have said "bugs", or should have said "insects and other small lifeforms."

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.

It seems to me that the insurance company had a pretty straightforward case that spiders are "vermin". I don't understand why the court had to go into the dubious proposition that spiders are "insects".

Merriam Webster dictionary says, "insect, noun, any of numerous small invertebrate animals (such as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented —not used technically"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com