Anderson v. Minnesota Ins. Guar. Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• “[h]aving previously concluded that the pollution exclusion clause is clear and unambiguous, we now conclude that reliance on any explanations contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the policy language is, as a matter of law, unreasonable”
• appearing to reject a regulatory estoppel argument in the face of unambiguous policy language
• where pollution exclusion has been held to be clear and unambiguous, reliance on any explanations contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the policy language is, as a matter of law, unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).