Court Opinion

ID: 9557813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:58:10.75828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:22.433558
License: Public Domain

*421Batjer, C. J.,
with whom Gunderson, J., agrees,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by my brothers, but for a substantially different and more fundamental reason.
The majority opinion is predicated upon a distinction between a yacht insurance policy and an insurance policy covering commercial fishing boats. I believe consideration of this distinction is premature because there was no policy of insurance in effect at the time of the loss and, thus, any such distinction is irrelevant to determination of this case.
An insurance policy is a contract (McGregor v. Inter-Ocean Insurance Company, 292 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1956); Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation v. Frost, 62 P.2d 320 (Ariz. 1936)) and, like all other contracts, requires a manifestation of mutual assent in the form of an offer by one party and acceptance thereof by the other (John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Dietlin, 199 A.2d 311 (R.I. 1964); Mallard v. Hardware Indemnity Ins. Co., 216 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Civ.App. 1948)), agreement or meeting of the minds of the parties as to all essential elements (Roscoe v. Bankers Life Ins. Co. of Nebraska, 526 P.2d 1080 (Ariz.App. 1974); American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Brawner, 93 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936)), including the period of risk (Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Wade, 257 P.2d 1064 (Okla. 1953)).
Here, appellant contacted McDonald, Obus’s agent, seeking a quotation on available rates; Obus quoted annual rates which McDonald communicated to appellant.
Appellant, ostensibly not interested in one-year coverage, inquired about six-month coverage. Obus then notified appellant that only one-year coverage was available. Appellant’s boat was destroyed by fire before this last communication was received.
An acceptance contemplates a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of the contract and acceptance of the same terms contained in the offer. Linnastruth v. Mutual Ben. H. & Accident Ass’n, 137 P.2d 833 (Cal. 1943). If this acceptance modifies or alters any of the essential terms, such acceptance constitutes a counter-offer which must then be accepted by the other party in order to create an enforceable contract of insurance. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., v. Ricas, 22 A.2d 484 (Md.App. 1941); Jacobson v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 271 F.2d 620 (7th Cir. 1959); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Whitler, 172 F.2d 631 (7th Cir. 1949); Lincoln Liberty Life Insurance Company v. Martinez, 299 P.2d 507 *422(Colo. 1956); Morford v. California Western States Life Ins. Co., 113 P.2d 629 (Ore. 1941); Simmons v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 11 So.2d 703 (La.App. 1942). See generally Couch on Insurance 2d § 7:17, 7:20.
Here, appellant, in essence, applied for a six-month policy of insurance which was rejected by Obus’s counter-offer of a one-year policy. This counter-offer was never accepted and, thus, no contract was formed. Accordingly, there was no policy of insurance covering the boat at the time it was destroyed and, for this reason, the district court judgment should be affirmed.