Stone Container Corp. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance

1. Do you see any difference between the way Judge Posner interprets insurance contracts and the way Judge Sofaer does? Do you have a preference?

2. The structure of coverage here: coverage provision, exclusion to coverage, exception to exclusion, is very common in insurance policies. 

3. Is Judge Posner saying the word "explosion" is not ambiguous or that, while there may be some ambiguity with "explosion" in some contexts, it is clear that what happened here was not an explosion? Are there any words that are never ambiguous?

4. Why does the fact that the water turns into steam outside of the vessel that exploded mean that the vessel is not "of a kind" with a steam boiler? Is it so clear?

5. Practice pointer: When litigating contracts cases, always have a factual scenario in mind in which the contract would be interpreted against you. Otherwise, you have rendered the provision illusory. Can you do any better than counsel for Stone (the insured) in coming up with an interpretation of "of a kind" with respect to steam boilers under which the pulp digester was of a kind with steam boilers but some other vessel was not? If you can't do any better, what does that prove?

6. Judge Posner doesn't like the idea of a trial here in part because it would introduce "radical ambiguity" into an excusion "designed to be mechanically applicable." Do you think his reluctance undercuts the doctrine of contra proferentem? Ask yourself how the Atwater Creamery case would come out under Judge Posner's reasoning.