4 ms·
If there's a problem with this, it isn't in the use of a common meaning for a term rather than the technical meaning. It's our worry that if the shoe were on t
by paultopia 6y ago
If there's a problem with this, it isn't in the use of a common meaning for a term rather than the technical meaning. It's our worry that if the shoe were on the other foot---if it were a policy that covered insect damage, and an insurance company were trying to wriggle out of paying---that the court would gleefully say "ah-ha! spiders aren't insects! insurance company doesn't have to pay!"
- derekp7 6y agoThat reminds me of an episode of the Jim Henson show "Dinosaurs". Earl's house got hit by a rock that fell from space. Well, the insurance didn't pay -- he had "meteor" insurance, but what hit is house was a "meteorite". They said if his house was floating in space, then he would be covered. (Technically, he still wouldn't be covered, because in space it would be a meteoroid).
- a1369209993 6y agoIsn't it technically not a meteorite until it hits the ground? Which it could only do after destroying his house, because the house is between it and the ground?
- happytoexplain 6y agoAs I understand it, a significant part of the legal process has to do with interpreting language, meaning, and the spirit of agreements, rather than enforcing technical definitions.