The district court ruled that brown recluse spiders are insects [pdf]

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201910940.pdf

by ColinWright • 6 years ago

19 33 6 years ago

media.ca11.uscourts.gov

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

monocasa3• 6 years ago

Yep, it's how legally tomatoes are vegetables, not fruit... for tax purposes. Nobody is overruling science, they're just keeping the law consistent with it's original meaning.

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.

cortesoft2• 6 years ago

Tomatoes being vegetables isn't even overruling 'science', anyway... it is just because vegetable has multiple meanings. Tomatoes are a culinary vegetable and a botanical fruit.

a13692099933• 6 years ago

Tomatoes are not, in any way, fruit; the definition of [air-quotes] 'fruit' you're thinking of also includes blueberries, pumpkins, cucumbers, avocados, peanuts, lima beans, raspberries, and arguably pinecones.

See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Table_of_fruit_examples

Causality1• 6 years ago

Strange that they focused on that instead of the fact that a spider infestation isn't property damage. It doesn't affect the building in any way other than killing other harmful bugs. Spider removal isn't a property damage expense any more than calling animal control to pick up a stray dog that'd gone to sleep on your rug would be.

TheChaplain• 6 years ago

Uh, do a google image search on brown recluse spider bite, they certainly aren't harmless and could cause serious damage if let wandering around.

JumpCrisscross• 6 years ago

What is the correct technical term for insects, arachnids and other insect-like organisms?

the8472• 6 years ago

Arthropods

ColinWright3• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

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.

Rantenki• 6 years ago

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.

asynchronous13• 6 years ago

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"

paultopia• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

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).

a13692099933• 6 years ago

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?

happytoexplain2• 6 years ago

As I understand it, a significant part of the legal process has to do with interpreting language, meaning, and the spirit of agreements, rather than enforcing technical definitions.

bernardv• 6 years ago

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

darkerside• 6 years ago

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

MattGaiser• 6 years ago

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

ColinWright3• 6 years ago

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.

The district court ruled that brown recluse spiders are insects [pdf]

Related Stories