Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hammonds

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a contract is ambiguous when, “reading the contract as a whole, two reasonable and fair interpretations are possible”
• holding insured could not recover loss of consortium for severe injury of uninsured son
• holding, under language that did not explicitly require injuries by the insured, that one must “engage in a strained and forced interpretation of the ... policy to conclude that it provides compensation for an insured household member for injuries to non-resident, uninsured relatives”
• directing courts to resolve ambiguity against insurer “even where the insurer may have intended another meaning”
• directing courts to resolve ambiguity against insurer “even where the insurer may have intended another meaning”
• construing UIM statute providing coverage “for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover .damages ... because of bodily injury, death ... resulting therefrom .... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).