Court: |
Iowa Supreme Court |
|
Facts: |
Insurance contract, trying to protect against claims arising from
inside jobs, requires that there be visible signs of a break-in.
Some skilled burglars enter without leaving a trace on the
building itself, and steal stuff. To the astonishment of the
plaintiff and his insurance agent, the claim is denied. |
|
Posture: |
Judgment for the defendant at trial. |
|
Issue: |
Is this definition of "burglary" enforceable? |
|
Holding: |
Reversed and remanded. |
|
Rule: |
If non-dickered terms are counter-intuitive, it can't be said
that the parties agreed to them. |
|
Reasoning: |
If a term is re-defined so as to eviscerate its meaning, it should
not be considered part of the contract unless the parties
are explicitly doing things that way. |
|
Dicta: |
Dissent: this wasn't "fine print:" the plaintiff just wants the
court to re-write the contract in his favor. The court has
no business using this case as a springboard to announce
general rules-- the goal should just be to deal with this
particular dispute. |