C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.
227 N.W.2d 169 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an insurance contract of adhesion, courts will enforce the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured regarding the terms of their policy, even if a painstaking study of the boilerplate language would have negated those expectations.
Facts:
- C & J Fertilizer, Inc. (C & J) purchased a 'Broad Form Storekeepers Policy' and a 'Mercantile Burglary and Robbery Policy' from Allied Mutual Insurance Co. (Allied).
- During the sale, Allied's agent informed C & J that the policy would require visible evidence of a burglary to distinguish it from an 'inside job,' but did not explain the specific requirement for marks on the building's exterior.
- C & J's president reviewed the policy's coverage amounts and descriptions but did not read the fine-print definition of 'burglary' buried within the policy.
- On a weekend in April 1970, an unknown person or persons entered the locked C & J building by forcing open a plexiglass overhead door, a method which did not leave visible marks on the exterior.
- The intruder then forcibly broke open a locked interior storeroom door, leaving visible tool marks on that door.
- Chemicals valued at $9,582 and office equipment valued at $400.30 were stolen from the premises.
- Tire tread marks were visible in the mud leading to and from the plexiglass door that served as the point of entry.
Procedural Posture:
- C & J Fertilizer, Inc. sued Allied Mutual Insurance Co. in an Iowa trial court to recover for a burglary loss.
- Following a trial to the court, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant, Allied Mutual, finding that C & J had failed to establish a burglary within the policy's definition.
- C & J Fertilizer, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an insurance policy's definition of 'burglary,' which requires visible marks of forced entry on the exterior of the premises, enforceable against an insured who reasonably expected coverage for a legitimate third-party burglary that left no such marks?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynoldson, Justice
No. The policy's restrictive definition of burglary is not enforceable because it violates the insured's reasonable expectations of coverage. The doctrine of reasonable expectations holds that the objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and beneficiaries regarding insurance terms will be honored even if contradicted by boilerplate language. Here, C & J reasonably expected coverage for a bona fide third-party burglary, and the only exclusion they should have anticipated was for an 'inside job,' which the evidence (the broken interior door) ruled out. The policy's requirement of 'visible marks' on the 'exterior' is an escape clause, masquerading as a definition, that makes coverage dependent on the burglar's skill rather than the reality of the loss bargained for. This provision is also unenforceable on the alternative grounds that it breaches an implied warranty of fitness for the policy's intended purpose and is unconscionable due to the gross inequality in bargaining power and the unfair surprise it imposes on the insured.
Dissenting - LeGrand, Justice
Yes. The insurance policy's definition of burglary is unambiguous and should be enforced as written. The court should not meddle with contracts that clearly state their meaning simply because it dislikes the outcome. The provision serves a legitimate purpose of protecting the insurer from fraudulent claims and 'inside jobs.' The doctrine of reasonable expectations is inapplicable here because an officer of the plaintiff corporation testified he was aware of the provision. The majority's arguments about 'fine print' are unfounded, as the policy is printed in a uniform and legible type. The court is improperly rewriting the contract to provide coverage that the plaintiff did not purchase and knew it did not have.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that firmly established the doctrine of reasonable expectations in insurance law, providing a powerful tool for policyholders against restrictive, non-negotiated terms in adhesion contracts. The ruling shifts judicial focus from a strict, literal interpretation of policy language to the actual, reasonable understanding of the parties at the time of the bargain. By invalidating a term that eviscerated the dominant purpose of the burglary policy, the court signaled that insurers cannot use hidden, bizarre, or oppressive boilerplate definitions to defeat the core coverage an insured reasonably believes they have purchased. This precedent significantly impacts how courts scrutinize standardized contracts and protects consumers from unfair surprise.
Unlock the full brief for C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.