Yep, it's how legally tomatoes are vegetables, not fruit... for tax purposes. Nobody is overruling science, they're just keeping the law consistent with it's original meaning.

Think of it as the legacy endpoints you have to keep around for your system even though you wouldn't write it that way today.

Tomatoes being vegetables isn't even overruling 'science', anyway... it is just because vegetable has multiple meanings. Tomatoes are a culinary vegetable and a botanical fruit.

Nix v Hedden [1] cracks me up every time it gets referenced.

"Gray acknowledged that botanically, tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine"; nevertheless, they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert."

"Both the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper.[5] Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot and bean."

Toy Biz v United States [2] is another great one, especially if you're a nerd (like me) who loves reading the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (e.g. https://twitter.com/asciimike/status/1258780502837932035).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz,_Inc._v._United_States

I really enjoyed the Planet Money episode on Toy Biz v United States!

Tomatoes are not, in any way, fruit; the definition of [air-quotes] 'fruit' you're thinking of also includes blueberries, pumpkins, cucumbers, avocados, peanuts, lima beans, raspberries, and arguably pinecones.

See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit#Table_of_fruit_examples

To prove that tomatoes aren't a fruit, did you just link to the page showing how tomatoes can be considered a fruit?

As an aside, I make a mean tomato cobbler. You just have to find a local farmer because most of the macro distributed stuff has been selected for shape and color rather than flavor.

On what basis do you conclude that that page does not also show how non-fruits such as pumpkins, berries, or chili peppers can be considered a fruit?

Some things are fruits in at least a botanical context and vegetables in at least a culinary context. Another prominent context that may differ is the legal one. Given all that, why are you asserting that the things on this list of fruits are "non-fruits" without giving some kind of elaboration/qualification as to the point you're making?

> non-fruits such as ... berries

Wat

What is the correct technical term for insects, arachnids and other insect-like organisms?

Arthropods

Also includes myriapods (many feet, eg centipedes), and crustaceans (aka sea-bugs).

If I had an insurance policy that excluded insect infestation, then I had a spider infestation, and the the insurers said ... "Oh, we meant bug infestation, spiders are really a sort of insect", then I would genuinely be outraged.

That's what's happened here, and I can't help but see it as another case of insurers once again not paying up because they can get away with it.

If they meant "bugs" they should have either have said "bugs", or should have said "insects and other small lifeforms." I'm sure their lawyers could find a way to be more precise, and it seems reasonable to me to require it of them.

But, well, I'm neither a lawyer nor an insurance expert.

Okay, turn the hypothetical around. Let’s say you (generic “you”) had an insurance policy that covered you for loss caused by insect and vermin infestations, and the insurance company refused to pay after a spider infestation. Would you stoically accept the insurance company’s position? Maybe you would wouldn’t even file a claim in the first place, to demonstrate a commitment to scientifically precise language in insurance policies.

Perhaps. I suspect many of us would reasonably argue, in such a situation, that the category of loss described in the policy is obvious to a reasonable observer, and if, say, an ant infestation is valid grounds for a claim, a spider infestation should be too.

I’m no great fan of the insurance industry, but putting that aside for a moment, it does seem that in terms of the contract language, a sensible conclusion was reached here.

Actually, I've been bitten (if you'll pardon the pun) by this, not in the case of insurance, but in the case of contract law. I and my lawyers knew the definitions in question, and were content that we had an understanding, only to discover later, during a dispute, that the technical meanings of various terms and definitions were being overturned in favour of "common understanding."

Fortunately a significant amount of negotiation meant that we ended up with a revised agreement we were all happy with ... that would be unlikely if an insurance company is involved.

My point was never the inaccuracy of including spiders as insects, my point was intended to be that the terms in your legal documents may not carry the meanings you expect. I guess that point is lost now.

And to answer your question, I would include "spiders" as "vermin" in circumstances such as this."

> If they meant "bugs" they should have either have said "bugs", or should have said "insects and other small lifeforms."

You clearly didn't read the actual judgement. It very clearly states Insects and/or vermin. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a reasonable term for 'other small lifeforms'.

The judgment is very clear that it rejects the claims for BOTH the insect and vermin clause, and acknowledges that while spiders are not "scientifically" insects, they are insects according to normal use, and also because of previous case-law.

It seems to me that the insurance company had a pretty straightforward case that spiders are "vermin". I don't understand why the court had to go into the dubious proposition that spiders are "insects".

Merriam Webster dictionary says, "insect, noun, any of numerous small invertebrate animals (such as spiders or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented —not used technically"

Strange that they focused on that instead of the fact that a spider infestation isn't property damage. It doesn't affect the building in any way other than killing other harmful bugs. Spider removal isn't a property damage expense any more than calling animal control to pick up a stray dog that'd gone to sleep on your rug would be.

Uh, do a google image search on brown recluse spider bite, they certainly aren't harmless and could cause serious damage if let wandering around.

Interesting anecdote here:

> In 2001, more than 2,000 brown recluse spiders were removed from a heavily infested home in Kansas, yet the four residents who had lived there for years were never harmed by the spiders, despite many encounters with them.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_recluse_spider#Bite)

You're right - they're not harmless - but I suspect they're not as dangerous as folklore might portray them.

Sure, they’re not at all dangerous until you’re bitten. Just as a power tool without guards is perfectly safe until someone sticks there hand in the powered bit.

Damage in the legal sense, for property, is something that causes a reduction in the value, or the ability to enjoy the property. Even if the spiders went inherently valuable of being harmful, the face that many people are fearful of spiders makes an infestation effective damage.

For the squeamish: brown recluse venom is necrotic, it causes flesh around the bite to decay. This doesn't always happen, but it happens enough to be alarming.