Moss v. Union Mutual Insurance

I do not think the contract of insurance entered into by the Mosses and the defendant insurance company covering their prospective daughter-in-law’s engagement ring violated the public policy of this State. And whether it violated public policy is the core question.

The majority emphasizes Crossman’s1 inquiry whether the plaintiff there had been pecuniarily damaged by the loss of the building. But both the fore and aft of that opinion show the fundamental inquiry to be whether the policy of insurance is a wagering, gambling contract, not whether the insured will suffer a pecuniary loss. The…