Definition
"Concern" appears in legal sources primarily as a term of art within specific doctrinal phrases rather than as a standalone legal concept. Its legal significance clusters in three contexts:
1. Whom It May Concern (Insurance). A clause in a policy of insurance stating that coverage is "on account of whom it may concern" operates as a floating designation of the insured party. It extends coverage to all persons who (a) held an insurable interest in the subject matter at the time the policy was issued, and (b) were within the contemplation of the party procuring the insurance at that time. The clause does not expand coverage to any person with a technical interest; the procuring party must have had authority — express or implied — to insure on that person's behalf.
2. Whom It May Concern (Property and Bailee Sales). In the context of sales by bailees or tax sales, a notice or proceeding conducted "for whom it may concern" signals action directed at an unknown or non-claiming owner. The phrase operates procedurally to bind parties whose identity is uncertain or who have failed to come forward.
3. Touch and Concern (Real Property Covenants). In the law of real covenants, "touch and concern" is a formal requirement for a covenant to run with the land. A covenant touches and concerns the land when it affects the use, value, or enjoyment of the land itself rather than merely the personal obligations of the covenantor. This is one of the most analytically demanding elements in the law of servitudes and is addressed separately in the encyclopedia entry below.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A matter of interest or worry to someone; the expression of solicitude or anxiety; also, a business or enterprise ("a going concern").
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To relate or belong to; to have reference to or connection with; to affect the interest of; to be of importance to.
The gap between common and legal meaning is structural rather than semantic. In ordinary English, "concern" signals relevance or worry. In legal usage, the word almost never appears alone — it anchors specific doctrinal phrases ("whom it may concern," "touch and concern") where it carries technical operative force. A reader encountering "concern" in a legal document should ask immediately whether it appears as part of one of these established phrases, because the doctrinal rules attached to those phrases are far more demanding than the plain-English meaning of the word suggests.
Common Confusion
"Touch and concern" is sometimes conflated with the separate privity requirements for running covenants. These are distinct elements: a covenant may touch and concern the land while still failing to run because horizontal or vertical privity is absent. In modern Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes analysis, the touch-and-concern requirement has been largely absorbed into a reasonableness inquiry, which creates additional confusion when researchers move between older case law and modern doctrine. See the encyclopedia entry on Real Covenants for fuller treatment.
Separately, "whom it may concern" as used in insurance should not be confused with the ordinary salutation "To Whom It May Concern." In the insurance context, the phrase is an operative coverage term with specific legal consequences for who qualifies as an insured — it is not merely a general address.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers face three distinct navigational challenges with this term:
First, indexing. Historical digests and reporters do not consistently index "concern" as a standalone headword. Relevant cases appear under INSURANCE (open or floating policies), BAILMENT (bailee's power of sale), TAXATION (tax sale notice), and COVENANTS (running with the land). A search for "concern" alone will produce noise; search for the full phrase in each doctrinal context.
Second, the insurance clause has a long history in maritime and cargo insurance, meaning early American and English cases — including admiralty decisions — are part of the corpus. The 2 Parsons, Maritime Law reference in both Black's editions points researchers toward a treatise tradition that predates most American statutory regulation of insurance. These sources remain relevant for understanding how courts construe open-form policies.
Third, "touch and concern" underwent significant doctrinal upheaval in the twentieth century. Pre-Restatement (Third) cases apply a binary test (does the covenant affect the land or merely the person?), while modern courts in jurisdictions adopting the Restatement approach apply a more flexible standard. Historical dictionary sources reflect only the traditional test. Researchers working in jurisdictions that have not adopted the Restatement must identify which analytical framework the controlling courts apply before relying on historical authority.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (1st and 2nd editions) treat "concern" exclusively through the insurance clause "on account of whom it may concern," citing Parsons on Maritime Law and a Maine decision. The definition is narrow and practically oriented: it tells practitioners when the clause will attach to a given person's interest. Neither edition addresses touch and concern in property law, reflecting the era's tendency to treat covenant doctrine under separate headwords.
Anderson's Dictionary broadens the coverage usefully, noting both the insurance application and the bailee/tax-sale context. Anderson's observation that the clause applies to persons "who ordered it, provided they had authority to insure" adds the authority element that Black's implies but does not state explicitly.
Burrill's Dictionary contains no substantive entry for "concern" as a legal term — the passage reproduced under this heading is from an unrelated maxim entry (the Omnis definitio principle), apparently a digitization artifact. Researchers should not treat Burrill as a source on this term.
All historical sources omit "touch and concern" as a property law concept, which is conspicuous given its centrality to covenant doctrine. This absence reflects historical dictionary organization rather than historical unimportance of the doctrine; researchers must look to treatises on real property and equity for pre-twentieth-century treatment.
Jurisdictional Note
Touch-and-concern doctrine varies significantly by jurisdiction. States that have adopted or been influenced by the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (2000) have largely abandoned the traditional touch-and-concern element in favor of a validity inquiry focused on public policy and reasonableness. States applying traditional common law rules continue to require strict satisfaction of the touch-and-concern test. The distinction matters acutely when evaluating the enforceability of modern commercial covenants, homeowner association restrictions, and conservation easements.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Real Covenants — Creation, Requirements (Writing, Intent, Touch and Concern, Privity) (Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia)
Non-Judicial Foreclosure — Power of Sale, Statutory Requirements, and Due Process Concerns (Law Mind Real Estate Transactions & Construction Encyclopedia)