Farm Bureau succeeds in another effort to eliminate coverage

The Plaintiff Raynice Starr argued that Farm Bureau owed coverage for her home damaged by fire, even though she had been sent a notice of cancellation days before.  She claimed that the "continuous renewal" and "cancellation" provisions in the policy were conflicting and ambiguous and should be interpreted against the drafter, Farm Bureau.  The Court found no ambiguity in the policy language and a failure by the Plaintiff to preserve the ambiguity issue in the lower court.