Opinion ID: 1191630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Darner Motors

Text: Koory argues that he relied on the plain language of the policy and that reading new exclusions into the policy violates the reasonable expectations principle announced in Darner, supra . In Darner, we refused to give effect to boilerplate contract provisions that are inconsistent with the parties' intent as expressed in their negotiations, prior understandings, and conduct. Unlike Darner, this case does not present a situation where the insured's reasonable expectations have been undercut by the boilerplate provisions of the policy. In this case, there are no contrary provisions in the policy. Darner, however, is not limited to situations where the parties' negotiations or conduct undercut boilerplate provisions. The principles articulated in Darner do not permit the insurer to undercut the dickered deal. A fortiori, those principles do not permit courts to imply restrictive conditions contrary to the plain language of the policy. Having purchased windstorm coverage, Koory is entitled to exactly that. The opposite side of the Darner coin, however, is that Western sold Koory only windstorm coverage. Western did not insure every loss caused by the wind; it insured only those damages caused by windstorm, a term the policy leaves undefined. Nothing in the transaction itself nor in Western's conduct gave rise to any different reasonable expectation by the insured. Thus, the real issue in this case, as in St. Paul, is what constitutes a windstorm.