
The district court ruled that brown recluse spiders are insects [pdf] - ColinWright
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201910940.pdf
======
chipperyman573
This isn't about ruling that spiders are insects, it's about insurance. Unless
there's some context I'm missing it seems like clickbait/outrage-bait with
crucial information intentionally omitted from the headline. From the linked
PDF:

> "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

~~~
ColinWright
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.

~~~
starmftronajoll
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.

~~~
ColinWright
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."

------
paultopia
If there's a problem with this, it isn't in the use of a common meaning for a
term rather than the technical meaning. It's our worry that if the shoe were
on the other foot---if it were a policy that covered insect damage, and an
insurance company were trying to wriggle out of paying---that the court would
gleefully say "ah-ha! spiders aren't insects! insurance company doesn't have
to pay!"

~~~
derekp7
That reminds me of an episode of the Jim Henson show "Dinosaurs". Earl's house
got hit by a rock that fell from space. Well, the insurance didn't pay -- he
had "meteor" insurance, but what hit is house was a "meteorite". They said if
his house was floating in space, then he would be covered. (Technically, he
still wouldn't be covered, because in space it would be a meteoroid).

~~~
a1369209993
Isn't it technically not a meteorite until it hits the ground? Which it could
only do _after_ destroying his house, because the house is between it and the
ground?

------
ColinWright
I think my point in posting this has kinda got lost. It's not about the
scientific classification being abandoned because of "common use" as found in
dictionaries, that's not the point. The point was that you, because of your
own specialist knowledge, may in some circumstances think that you're insured
against something, only to discover later that the "common definition" has it
that you're not.

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.

------
bernardv
A reflection of the very old-fashioned world of insurance underwriting and
contract wording. Legal world is just as antiquated.

------
darkerside
Tomatoes are fruits but are considered vegetables by Dept of Agriculture, and
most people who cook, serve, or eat them.

~~~
MattGaiser
That is because "vegetables" has become a political term to mean "healthy
food."

