ACE American Insurance v. Ascend One Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding claims unrelated because they were related only by general business practices rather than “focusing on the specific experiences of the . . . plaintiffs”
• deeming a similar “Interrelated Wrongful Acts” provision to be an exclusion
• “Under Maryland law, the burden rests on the insurer to establish the applicability of a particular exclusion from coverage.”
• under Maryland law, the exclusive-pleadings or eight-corners rule did not bar the insured from using extrinsic evidence to prove the potentiality of coverage under an interrelated-claims provision
• under Maryland law, the exclusive-pleadings or eight-corners rule did not bar the insured from using extrinsic evidence to prove the potentiality of coverage under an interrelated-claims provision
• no imposition of ‘‘but-for” test or causal relationship when examining identical definition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).