Kansas Supreme Court - 189 Kan. 459, 189 Kan. 459, 370 P.2d 379
In the 1962 Kansas Supreme Court case Ferguson v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York, store owner Ferguson sued insurance company Phoenix for breach of warranty and other claims. Ferguson's store was burglarized, and the burglars took money from a safe and merchandise. Phoenix only partially paid Ferguson for his losses, citing a policy clause requiring visible signs of forced entry on all doors of the the safe for full reimbursement.
Ferguson sued Phoenix in district court, arguing that the insurance company's clause was unreasonable and breached their warranty. The district court ruled in Ferguson's favor, awarding him the money he sought. Phoenix appealed the decision, but the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, stating that the insurance company's warranty was indeed invalid and against public policy.
The court applied the principle of public policy to determine if a contract or clause goes against societal interests or justice. They found that Phoenix's warranty was too restrictive, unfairly depriving Ferguson of his rightful insurance benefits. They concluded that this warranty was invalid, and Ferguson was entitled to recover under his policy fully.
This case highlights the legal concept of public policy, a basis for voiding a contract or clause if it contradicts social values and norms, statutory or common law, or moral and ethical considerations. It demonstrates that contracts are subject to legal limitations, and any violation of those restrictions will render a contract or clause invalid.
This case involves an insurance policy covering loss resulting from safe burglary. The policy requires actual force and violence to enter the safe or vault and leaving visible marks on the exterior. The court considers the "visible marks" clause as a rule of evidence and questions whether an insurance company can impose such a provision to protect itself from fraud. The court affirms that actual force and violence need only be contributing factors to the opening of a safe, even if the safe was not opened by such force and violence alone. The trial court's instruction directing a verdict for the defendant was held erroneous, as it would defeat the purpose of the insurance and make it almost useless.
Judge Price's dissenting opinion in the case argues that the insurance policy's "safe burglary" clause is clear and unambiguous, and therefore should be enforced as written. The judge believes that the court's role is not to create a new contract for the parties involved, but rather to uphold the existing one. Previous cases are cited to support this opinion, and the judge recommends reversing the judgment.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.