First, often what isn't said is what makes the message so simple, the intent so crystal clear. Each three-word phrase eloquently states the facts and cuts to the chase.

Second, anything beyond those three words is simply window dressing, needless extension, interesting but unnecessary, a possibly enjoyable but superfluous flight into fancy. Away with the lengthier sonnets of Shakespeare, the poems of Browning, the lyrics of Def Leppard! “How do I love thee?” Indeed, feel free to count the ways. But “I shall but love thee better after death”? That's just creepy.

Related: Read Amrhein's previous column “Rain Blame.”

If only some in our industry would learn: if it's great for love, it's surely good enough for insurance.

To illustrate, let's apply our corollaries above to a real insurance claim.

My good friend Bill Wilson includes in his popular “VU Top 20 Countdown” seminars an example where an insured hit a deer with a vehicle covered under a Business Auto Policy (BAP) that only contained collision and specified perils coverage—no comprehensive. The adjuster denied the claim, stating the insured needed comprehensive to cover animal damage. Result? One more consumer questioning the good faith of our industry.

When asked to clarify, the adjuster pointed to the ISO BAP (CA 00 01 03 10), Section III, A. 3., “Glass Breakage—Hitting A Bird Or Animal—Falling Objects Or Missiles,” the pertinent portion of which states:

If you carry Comprehensive Cover-age for the damaged covered “auto”, we will pay for the following under Comprehensive Coverage: b. “Loss” caused by hitting a bird or animal…

Seems clear enough. And if you consider the policy without comprehensive coverage, it is equally clear “Specified Causes of Loss Coverage” will not apply, as animals are not one of the listed perils.

But take a look at the collision coverage and tell me why the insured cannot claim the damage caused by the deer under that provision. It simply reads it will cover damage

Caused by: (1) The covered “auto's” collision with another object…

Where does it say that it doesn't cover hitting a deer? For those people who will hang their argument on the word “object,” here is a common dictionary definition of that term:

A material thing that can be seen and touched.

Because the original claim from the insured clearly stated he hit a deer, we can assume it was capable of being seen. And if he—or more accurately, his vehicle—hadn't “touched” it, there would be no claim. With both “seen and touched” confirmed, we therefore confirm a deer meets the definition of “object” and collision coverage applies.

Note the adjuster's error ties directly back to both of our “love” corollaries.

Related; Read another Amrhein column “Think Like the Dickens.”

First, in looking at the specified perils and collision language, he was clearly misguided by the lack of a specific reference to animals or deer. While under “specified perils” that was a critical omission, under the broad language of “collision” it was a nonissue. Consider if the forms drafters had decided, instead of keeping the collision coverage description short and to the point, clarity required an extensive listing of possibilities intended to be covered. Instead of clarifying, it would simply have made matters worse. For example, what if the language read “…collision with another object, such as fences, signs, barns, other vehicles, trees, and hills.” If the insured struck a bush, would that be considered the same as a tree? Does “hill” include “mountain”? Before you say “of course,” keep in mind some folks from the Rockies consider the Appalachians mere pretenders to the term “mountain.” And if one can truly “make a mountain out of a molehill,” are molehills now clearly covered by inference? Despite the protestations of attorneys and others clearly paid by the word, love teaches us less is indeed often more.

Second, and in this case confirming the first corollary, what truly misled our adjuster was the addition of provision A.3. By including a separate paragraph specifically addressing loss caused by hitting a bird or animal, the forms drafters created the impression that without that paragraph, there was no intent of “hitting an animal” coverage absent comprehensive. And while gaining that mistaken impression is easy to understand, that is not what it says. Look at the wording of A.3. again:

If you carry Comprehensive Coverage for the damaged covered “auto”, we will pay for the following under Comprehensive Coverage:

Seems a bit redundant, don't you think? If you already have comprehensive coverage under A.1.a., why repeat the obvious under A.3?

Even in actual conversation, needless repetition can turn a magical moment into the exact opposite. “You complete me. No really, you do. Seriously. I mean, I'm not kidding. You may think I'm kidding, but I really mean it. This time for sure. Not that I didn't mean it last time, you understand, but just in case you thought I didn't mean it before I certainly mean it now. When I say you complete me, I really mean…”

So what is the point of paragraph A.3? First, keep in mind A.3. is conditional: it only applies “If you carry Comprehensive Coverage for the damaged covered auto.” Now, try this. Eliminate that paragraph. How would you adjust the deer claim? Exactly as we did in our discussion of the first corollary; review Specified Causes of Loss and Collision Coverage, and voila! The damage due to the deer is found under Collision and we're done. So if now we know the deer claim is covered, regardless of A.3., what is the point of the added language? Contrary to the adjuster's belief, it is not restricting the coverage only to Comprehensive, but offering the insured a bonus: if the deer damage could be claimed under Comprehensive or Collision, pick either.

For example, what if in our deer claim scenario the insured's BAC had Comprehensive subject to a $250 deductible, and Collision with a $1000 deductible; which applies to the damage? Without 3.A., the answer is clearly $1000. With 3.A., the insured with Comprehensive has the option to claim the $250.

This also explains the seemingly odd exception at the end of A.3., which no doubt further misled our adjuster. The exception provides an option to have glass breakage, if caused by a collision or overturn, to be claimed under Collision coverage. In our specific claim, the implication may then seem to be “then you don't have that option for animals.”

Related: Read the column “Livin' Large” by Chris Amrhein.

Nothing in that provision specifically states you cannot cover damage due to hitting a bird or animal or caused by falling objects or missiles under Collision. Note again the key phrase for the glass breakage exception: “if caused by a collision or overturn.” A.3. is not taking coverage away, it is offering the insured another bonus: If the glass breakage could be claimed under Comprehensive or included in the other damages caused by a Collision, pick either.

If the deductibles are as we previously stated, why would any insured in their right mind choose to include the glass breakage under Collision at a higher deductible? Simple: when it prevents paying two deductibles! If 100 percent of the damage due to the collision was glass breakage, then of course the insured would choose to claim under Comprehensive and the lower deductible. But what if there was significant damage to the auto beyond glass breakage? Because the insured is already out the $1,000 deductible for that portion of the damage, why not give the option to include any glass damage in that amount and avoid having to pay a separate Comprehensive deductible?

Ironic that a provision designed to give one insured the option of the best possible claim payment could become part of the reason for denying another insured any payment at all. Once again, the form's intention may have been well meant, but the confusion of the added wording and complexity in reality just created more problems.

Are you thinking that's interesting but as Tina Turner lamented, “What's love got to do with it?” Ah, grasshopper, have you never pondered the mystical muse who first thought to summarize the advantages of simplicity over complexity, of brevity over even well-meant lengthy discourse, with the acronym KISS?

A simple appreciation of the truth therein would have prevented an adjuster from being misled and an insured from being mistreated and an industry from being misunderstood. When analyzing form language for a specific claim, learn the lessons of love: What isn't said is as important as what is.

Even Jerry Maguire learned that lesson. Who'd have believed even those three little words could be overkill.

Jerry: I love you. You… you complete me. And I just…

Dorothy: Shut up, just shut up. You had me at “hello.”