Andres v. American Standard Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the objective in construing a contract is to determine the intent of the parties, particularly in accordance with any definitions included in the contract
• stating that, since Hoffman Construction Co., 313 Or at 469-71, the Supreme Court has been clear that “the interpretation of insurance policies is a question of law, not one that is resolved by reference to evidence extrinsic to the policy itself’
• noting the difference between Hoffman, an insurance case, and Yogman, a traditional contract case, regarding extrinsic evidence
• “[T]he interpretation of insurance policies is a question of law, not one that is resolved by reference to evidence extrinsic to the policy itself.”
• “The text of the policy includes any definitions of disputed terms included in the policy; we must, in fact, construe the policy in accordance with any such definitions.”
• [S]ince Hoffman Construction Co.[,] the interpretation of insurance policies is a question of law, not one that is resolved by reference to evidence extrinsic to the policy itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).