#14 - Principle: If an insurance policy is written in such a

[James Finch]

Hi Erica,

The first thing is to recognize what the principle is saying, and personalizing the language helps here. Basically, the principle gives us the conditions in which an insurance company should be forced to pay a policyholder in spite of the language of the insurance policy contract itself. Next, we should see that there are two elements/conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the principle to be invoked: First, the sufficient condition as given, which is that a reasonable person wouldn't read the contract thoroughly, and the implied condition that the reasonable expectations of a policyholder would differ from the contract terms. The application is missing both of these elements, so the correct answer choice should contain them both, as (B) does. It basically fills in the blanks of what the application is missing from what is needed to invoke the principle.

Hope this clears things up!

[smtq123]

Hi BK,

As a principle question, there are clear requirements that have to be met in order for the conclusion to be true. In this case, if an insurance policy is written in such a way that a reasonable person seeking insurance would not read it thoroughly, then a policyholder's reasonable expectation of policy coverage should take legal precedence over the specific language in the policy.

In the application of this principle, Celia's car has been damaged by hail. Her insurance policy specifically excludes coverage for hail damage. So how do we get from that that her insurance company should cover the hail damage? What are we missing? Looking back at the principle, we need:

1. A policy written in such a way that a reasonable person would not read it thoroughly, and;

2. A reasonable expectation on Celia's part that her insurance policy would cover hail damage.

If, and only if, we have those two elements, then we can justify the conclusion that the insurance company should pay for the hail damage to Celia's car. Answer choice (B) gives us those two elements exactly. Answer choice (D), however, tells us only that Celia did not read the policy carefully, not whether the policy was written in such a way that a reasonable person would not read it thoroughly.

As an aside, principle questions like these that contain multiple elements to reach a conclusion are good practice for law school and beyond, as this is how laws themselves are written and interpreted. Whether established by a court or by statute, every cause of action contains elements, all of which must be met in order to establish the claim as true, and lawyers must fit the facts neatly within each and every element to establish their claims.

Kindly note that you skipped the important part in your point #1. It is not about any reasonable person, rather it is about a reasonable person "seeking insurance" and there is nothing in option B which either states that that the reasonable person was seeking insurance or Celia didn't read the insurance policy.

So, in my view both B & E are lacking one element of the sufficient condition! Although B can be considered little better than E. Please clarify!

[Robert Carroll]

smtq123,

You've pointed out that answer choice (B) is even better than it needed to be to strengthen the argument. From the stimulus, we want a certain kind of reasonable person ("a reasonable person seeking insurance") to be imagined as not reading the policy thoroughly before signing it. Answer choice (B) is showing that any reasonable person, including, of course, a reasonable person seeking insurance, would not read the policy. So answer choice (B) covers all reasonable people, including, of course, the subgroup we actually care about to strengthen the argument.

There's no requirement in the stimulus that the actual policyholder not read the policy. If a reasonable person in that position wouldn't do it, then the reasonable expectations of the policyholder take over. Nothing at all turns on whether Celia read the policy.

Robert Carroll