The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps moved into their home and discovered an infestation of the highly venomous brown recluse spider. Ps obtained a homeowners policy from D. That policy 'insured against risk of direct loss to property . . . only if that loss is a physical loss to property.' But the policy excluded from coverage any loss '[c]aused by . . . [b]irds, vermin, rodents, or insects.' D cited that exclusion in its letter denying coverage for a claim Ps filed for damage to their home after further attempts to eradicate the infestation failed. Ps sued for breach of contract and for bad faith refusal to pay. Ps alleged that brown recluse spiders infested every facet of their home, could not be eradicated, posed a deadly risk, and presented 'a dangerous and irreparable condition' that rendered their home 'unsafe for occupancy.' They alleged that their insurance policy covered the loss because brown recluse spiders are neither insects nor vermin within the meaning of the exclusion. The court dismissed Ps' complaint. It ruled that brown recluse spiders are both insects and vermin within the meaning of the policy. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.