1.

The contention of Jeff is that the complete paralysis of his arm is equivalent to
loss of arm and is compensable under the insurance policy. The contention of the
Country Bankers Life Insurance Company is that Jeff did not really lost his arm
and is not compensable under the policy.
2. The term loss of arm is the subject matter of the conflict between two parties.
3. In my opinion, the term loss of arm should be interpreted liberally. Loss of arm
does not necessarily mean the arm should be amputated. It would be a different
story if the term used in the contract is amputated arm. In the case at bar, even
if Jeffs arm was not amputated it becomes a useless arm that is equivalent to a
loss of arm.
4. The rule is that, if there will be ambiguities in the stipulations in a contract of
adhesion, such ambiguities are to be construed or interpreted against the party
that prepared it. This contract is drafted only by one party and the other party has
no participation and his choice is either to accept or decline. The latter cannot
modify the terms of the contract because a contract of adhesion is a take it or
leave it basis. If, however, the stipulations are not ambiguous, manifesting a clear
intention of the parties, then it should be interpreted according to its literal
meaning.
5. Yes, the complete paralysis of Jeffs arm is tantamount to a loss of arm for
rendering it completely useless for the rest of his life. There is no need for Jeff to
literally cut his arm off when the condition he is suffering at the moment is
equivalent to having lost that particular arm.