Professor Jeffrey Stempel’s scholarship has all the time had a knack for shaking up how we take into consideration insurance coverage regulation. His article, The Insurance coverage Coverage as Factor, 1 initially printed within the Tort Trial & Insurance coverage Observe Legislation Journal, continues 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 shouldn’t be solely incomplete but in addition dangerously deceptive relating to understanding how insurance coverage actually operates in the actual world.
He makes the case that an insurance coverage coverage is way extra like a product. It’s a way more standardized, mass-produced “factor” that’s purchased and offered, 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 if 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 truthful method to protection interpretation. It acknowledges that the majority policyholders lack the ability or experience to haggle over the wonderful print. They’re buying peace of thoughts. Insurance coverage is functioning as a safety machine, not a maze of exclusions. This lens makes the regulation much less about parsing clauses and extra about fulfilling the aim for which insurance coverage exists: to switch and unfold danger 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 idea. 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. Via these examples, he demonstrates how a “policy-as-product” perspective results in outcomes that make sense each commercially and morally. It’s the sort of pragmatic perception that reminds us why his writing stays important studying for anybody severe about tips on how to 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 turned a regulation 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 Easy 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 put up, I’ll proceed exploring Stempel’s concepts and sort out one other main theme in his article: what it means for judicial interpretation and equity when courts take the product nature of insurance coverage significantly. This one’s price digging into.
For our readers, I attempt to publish one thing each day. On Saturday, I caught an terrible chilly whereas racing on the Chip’s Ahoy! Nonetheless haven’t shaken it, however needed 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 Factor, 44 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 813 (Spring/Summer time, 2009).