Professor Jeffrey Stempel’s scholarship has at all times had a knack for shaking up how we take into consideration insurance coverage legislation. His article, The Insurance coverage Coverage as Factor, 1 initially printed within the Tort Trial & Insurance coverage Observe Regulation Journalcontinues that legacy by difficult a authorized behavior so entrenched we hardly ever cease to query it. He questions the concept an insurance coverage coverage is rather like any industrial contract. Stempel convincingly argues that this view just isn’t solely incomplete but in addition dangerously deceptive in terms of understanding how insurance coverage actually operates in the true world.
He makes the case that an insurance coverage coverage is much extra like a product. It’s a way more standardized, mass-produced “factor” that’s purchased and bought, and never a bespoke settlement negotiated by equal events. Insurers draft the language, regulators approve it, and customers buy it largely on religion. The transaction feels much less like a handshake deal and extra like shopping for an equipment off the shelf. You count on it to work as marketed, to not uncover hidden disclaimers whenever you attempt to use it. Stempel’s level is that courts and legal professionals ought to interpret insurance policies with that actuality in thoughts.
By viewing insurance coverage insurance policies as merchandise, not simply contracts, Stempel opens the door for a extra trustworthy, sensible, and honest method to protection interpretation. It acknowledges that almost all policyholders lack the ability or experience to haggle over the effective print. They’re buying peace of thoughts. Insurance coverage is functioning as a safety system, not a maze of exclusions. This lens makes the legislation much less about parsing clauses and extra about fulfilling the aim for which insurance coverage exists: to switch and unfold threat in order that people and companies can transfer ahead after catastrophe strikes.
What’s refreshing about Stempel’s work is that he doesn’t cease at concept. He makes use of examples that each protection lawyer acknowledges. He notes the “seen marks of housebreaking” circumstances, air pollution exclusions stretched to absurdity, and the infinite debates over coverage interval limits. By way of these examples, he demonstrates how a “policy-as-product” perspective results in outcomes that make sense each commercially and morally. It’s the type of pragmatic perception that reminds us why his writing stays important studying for anybody critical about how you can interpret insurance coverage contracts, from somebody who has been learning this his total life.
I first bumped into Stempel when he was a practising lawyer arguing a Hurricane Andrew case. I used to be fascinated by his strategy of breaking down clauses in his briefs. He later grew to become a legislation professor at Florida State College after which moved to the College of Las Vegas. I wrote about him earlier this yr in Deeper Evaluation of Methods to Interpret Insurance coverage Coverage Language—The place Insurance coverage Protection Nerds Go for the Weekend. I additionally famous Professor Stempel in different posts, together with Main Insurance coverage Tutorial Proves State Farm Accepts “Cheap Expectations” of Insurance coverage Protection.
In my subsequent submit, I’ll proceed exploring Stempel’s concepts and deal with one other main theme in his article: what it means for judicial interpretation and equity when courts take the product nature of insurance coverage critically. This one’s value digging into.
For our readers, I attempt to publish one thing day by day. On Saturday, I caught an terrible chilly whereas racing on the Chip’s Ahoy! Nonetheless haven’t shaken it, however wished to get what has been on my thoughts for a number of days.
Cheers!
Thought for the Day
“We form our instruments and thereafter our instruments form us.”
—Marshall McLuhan
1 Jeffrey W. Stempel, The Insurance coverage Coverage as Factor44 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 813 (Spring/Summer time, 2009).
