Insurer's Denial of Crop Insurance Coverage for Frost Damage Upheld

The case concerned a dispute over an insurance policy covering crop damage where the insurer denied coverage based on a clause excluding damage caused by frost, a condition the insured claimed was not explicitly stated in the policy when they signed it. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, reasoning that the exclusion clause regarding frost damage, despite the insured's claim of ignorance, was validly incorporated into the contract because the insured, acting as a professional, had the duty to review the general and special conditions presented at the time of contracting, and their failure to do so did not negate the binding nature of the agreed-upon contractual terms.