Summary
The Supreme Court restored an insured watch dealer’s consumer award because concurrent factual findings established that the policy’s exclusionary terms had not been communicated. The National Commission wrongly applied an exclusion requiring forcible and violent entry without addressing that foundational finding. The Court preserved the binding interpretation of such a clause when applicable, while distinguishing this case on non-communication; the separate safe-key exclusion also did not govern a loss outside a safe.
Issues
- Whether an insurer could rely on exclusionary terms not communicated to the insured.
- Whether the precedent requiring forcible and violent entry justified revisional interference.
Held
- Both consumer forums found that the exclusion and special conditions were not supplied to the insured. The National Commission overlooked those concurrent findings, although communication was essential before applying the exclusion. (¶ 14–16)
- The State Commission’s alternative interpretation of the forcible-entry condition conflicted with the governing precedent. That did not justify reversal because the terms had not been communicated; the precedent continued to apply where such terms govern. (¶ 15–17)
- The exclusion concerning property taken from a safe through use of its key was independently inapplicable because the loss was not from a safe. (¶ 8–9)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. National Commission order set aside and District Forum award restored. Pending applications disposed of.