Cardin v. Royal Insurance Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “strict command of [§ 113L] precludes the insurer’s attempt to avoid stacking”
• “no matter how explicit the exclusionary language may be, it cannot prevail if it is contrary to the statutory language or the legislative policy”
• where language of insurance policy is unambiguous, it should be interpreted the same as any other contract
• “when the Legislature mandated uninsured motorist coverage it did not intend that such coverage be limited to named insureds under a policy, to the exclusion of other household members”
• where policy language was favored to the insurer, “no matter how explicit the [policy] language may be, it cannot prevail if it is contrary to the statutory language or the legislative policy of G. L. c. 175, § 113L”
• injury caused by uninsured motorist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).