Barnett v. Aetna Life Insurance 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 an insurance policy was ambiguous with regard to whether it included VA benefits
• holding that construction of exclusionary clause urged by insured must be accepted so long as it is “not unreasonable,” even if insurer’s construction seems “more reasonable or a more accurate reflection of the parties’ intent”
• holding that if multiple interpretations are reasonable, courts favor the insured's
• concluding the “scope of the language is ambiguous” in a contract provision and construing the language against the drafter as a result
• stating that a court should read a contract, including an insurance policy, to give effect to each part of the contract unless doing so would do violence to the rules of law or construction
• stating that a court should read a contract, including an insurance policy, to give effect to each part of the contract unless doing so would do violence to the rules of law or construction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).