Opinion ID: 1152845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Mrs. Wallace's insurance policy give the attorney the right to enter the restaurant premises without permission?

Text: The insurance policy insuring the destroyed property stated: The insured, as often as may be reasonably required, shall exhibit to any person designated by the Company all that remains of any property herein described, and submit to examinations under oath by any person named by the Company. The attorney contends that the above-quoted provision gave him the right to enter the premises without permission. The attorney bases this contention on the fact that there was no stated duty in the policy for the insurer to request permission to go on the property. Furthermore, the Wallaces had no right to refuse admission to the insurer under the policy terms. It appears, then, that a construction of the term exhibit will be dispositive of the issue under analysis. Exhibit is defined as, To show or display; to offer or present for inspection. Black's Law Dictionary, 514 (5th Ed. 1979). With that definition of exhibit, a literal reading of this particular insurance policy provision does not give the insurer the right to enter a damaged premises absent some action being taken by the insured and an identification of the company's designee. The question of whether the insurance contract required permission from the insured to the insurer to enter the damaged property is decided adverse to the attorney's position. To decide otherwise would be to permit greater rights to private investigators than permitted law enforcement officials. Even here, the arson squad asked for permission to enter the premises.