Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Burlington Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a policy was not unenforceable as illusory where “the exclusion is plain and clear and does not surreptitiously take away the coverage that the [relevant endorsement] or other policy provisions purport to grant”
• “[T]he distinction between the terms ‘the insured’ and ‘any insured’ is . . . significant. . . . According to fundamental principles of contract construction, the difference cannot be meaningless.”
• “[I]f a policy term is ambiguous, a court must construe the policy ‘strictly against the insurer, who drafted the policy, and liberally in favor of coverage for the insured.’” (quoting Nicor, Inc. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd., 860 N.E.2d 280, 286 (Ill. 2006))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).