Canal Insurance Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under Pennsylvania law, the reasonable expectations of an insured may overcome unambiguous policy language only when the insured is a noncommercial entity
• finding that continuity prong was satisfied because insured had operated his business on a continuous basis for approximately ten years
• “Absent sufficient justification, ... an insured may not complain that his ... reasonable expectations were frustrated by policy limitations that are clear and unambiguous”
• if commercial liability insurer fails to pay final judgment rendered against its insured, insurer becomes personally responsible for judgment
• “[T]he District Court's refusal to look beyond the plain meaning of the unambiguous exclusionary language to [the insured’s] reasonable expectations is consistent with the interpretation of Pennsylvania case law in our Circuit.”
• no dispute as to choice of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).