Allstate Ins. Co. v. Peasley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding exclusion of coverage for injuries resulting from unintentional criminal acts of insured, such as reckless endangerment, did not violate public policy
• holding exclusion of coverage for injuries resulting from unintentional criminal acts of insured, such as reckless endangerment, did not violate public policy
• stating that interpreting “criminal acts” to include unintentional crimes “is supported by nearly every jurisdiction in our country which has examined that phrase”
• stating that any ambiguity in an insurance policy “is strictly construed against the 9 insurer”
• rejecting a public policy challenge to a criminal acts exclu-. sion where the homeowner committed reckless endangerment by shooting a guest
• refusing to restrict the meaning of the term “ ‘criminal acts’ to just intentional criminal acts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).