Opinion ID: 700249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Existence of an Oral Contract for Insurance

Text: 6 Lane argues that the entire contract for insurance between her husband and Penney was embodied in those items discussed in the sales call and that, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to her, the court must infer that the caller covered the sales portion of the script, but not the verification portion. Thus she asserts that an oral contract, with no exclusions or limitations on coverage, existed between her husband and Penney. 1 Her assertion is incorrect. Enforceable contracts for insurance may be made orally, but they must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 2 Couch on Insurance Sec. 14.21 (2d ed. 1984). The proponent of the contract must show that there was a meeting of the minds as to all material or essential terms. Weil & Assoc's v. Urban Renewal Agency, 479 P.2d 875, 883 (Kan.1971). Essential terms for a contract of insurance must include any limitations on coverage, at a minimum. Without that additional information, the terms of the propounded oral contract are, as Penney urges in its brief, too indefinite to be enforceable. The district court was correct in finding that no oral contract was formed. 7