Ferguson v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York
189 Kan. 459, 370 P.2d 379 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance policy provision that imposes a strict rule of evidence, such as requiring visible marks of force on all exterior doors of a safe, is unenforceable as against public policy when its application would defeat recovery on an obviously justifiable claim where felonious entry by actual force is admitted.
Facts:
- Forrest D. Ferguson operated a drug store and held a 'Storekeepers Burglary and Robbery Policy' issued by Phoenix Assurance Company of New York.
- The policy defined 'Safe Burglary' as entry by 'actual force and violence, of which force and violence there are visible marks made by tools... upon the exterior of (a) all of said doors of such... safe'.
- Ferguson's safe had two doors: an outer door secured by a combination lock and an inner door secured by a key lock.
- During the night of March 8, 1960, a burglar broke into the drug store.
- The burglar opened the safe's outer door by manipulating the combination, leaving no visible marks of force or violence on its exterior.
- The burglar then forcibly opened the inner door by punching out the lock, which left visible marks of force and violence on its exterior.
- The burglar stole $433.76 from within the safe.
Procedural Posture:
- Forrest D. Ferguson sued Phoenix Assurance Company of New York in a Kansas trial court to recover the full amount of money stolen from his safe.
- Before trial, the insurance company confessed judgment for $152.59, which included only $50 for the money taken from the safe, disputing the remaining $383.76.
- The trial court found for Ferguson, holding the policy provision was an 'escape clause' and awarded him the full amount stolen, plus attorney's fees.
- Phoenix Assurance Company of New York, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas, with Ferguson as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurance policy provision that defines 'safe burglary' as requiring 'visible marks of force and violence... upon the exterior of... all... doors' of a safe contravene public policy when used to deny a claim where actual force was visibly used on an inner door after the outer door was opened by manipulating its combination lock?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, J.
Yes. A provision in an insurance policy that establishes a rule of evidence contravenes public policy when it is asserted to defeat recovery on an obviously justifiable claim. The court determined that the substantive condition of the policy was that entry be made by 'actual force and violence,' which undisputedly occurred. The clause requiring 'visible marks' on 'all' doors was not a substantive condition of the risk insured against, but rather an evidentiary rule designed to protect the insurer from fraudulent 'inside jobs.' Because it is admitted that a burglary occurred with actual force and violence used to enter the safe (evidenced on the inner door), enforcing the technical evidentiary requirement regarding the outer door would go beyond the reasonable requirements to prevent fraud and would serve only to defeat a legitimate claim. Had the insurer intended to exclude losses where a combination is manipulated, it should have done so explicitly in the 'Exclusions' section of the policy, not within a definitional clause that functions as a rule of evidence.
Dissenting - Price, J.
No. The policy's 'safe burglary' clause should be enforced according to its terms because it is plain, clear, and unambiguous. The function of the court is to enforce the contract as the parties made it, not to create a new, more favorable contract for one of the parties. The insured purchased a policy with a specific, restrictive definition of coverage, and the loss that occurred did not meet that definition. The court should not relieve a party from disadvantageous terms simply because the outcome is harsh.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant judicial check on the ability of insurance companies to draft highly technical evidentiary requirements that can defeat otherwise valid claims. It establishes that in Kansas, such 'visible marks' clauses are not treated as absolute substantive conditions but as evidentiary rules that can be voided on public policy grounds if they lead to an unjust result. The ruling prioritizes the reasonable expectations of the insured over the literal language of the policy, suggesting that courts will look past technicalities to the substance of the loss when fraud is not a concern. Future cases may rely on this precedent to challenge other strict evidentiary clauses in insurance contracts that serve to deny coverage for legitimate losses.
