Arrowood Indem. Co. v. King

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, since the interference element \necessarily alleges a negative . . . courts have held that it is the defendant's burden to prove its inaccuracy\
• overruling in part Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Murphy, 206 Conn. 409 , 538 A.2d 219 [ (1988) ]
• overruling in part Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Murphy, 206 Conn. 409, 538 A.2d 219 [1988]
• adopting a narrow definition of the term premise to mean the residence 6 and its immediately adjoining roadways
• personal liability provision “plainly provides insurance against the consequences of certain accidents, and it is the ATV’s location at the time of such an accident that therefore determines whether coverage applies” (emphasis added)
• The Court “must look at the contract as a whole, consider all relevant portions together and, if possible, give operative effect to every provision in order to reach a reasonable overall result . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).