American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there were two sets of interrelated acts of embezzlement from employer, embezzlement by issuing unauthorized payroll checks and embezzlement by taking funds from the employer received as insurance premiums
• interpreting insurance contract as a whole to avoid “potentially unlimited windfall of recovery”
• “If no ambiguity exists, there is no reason for construction, and the court is bound to attribute the usual and accepted meaning to the phrase.”
• “If no ambiguity exists, there is no reason for construction.... ”
• interpreting definition of “occurrence” within the policy at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).