Carl Marty & Co. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding exclusion of coverage for injuries resulting from unintentional criminal acts of insured, such as reckless endangerment, did not violate public policy
• holding exclusion of coverage for injuries resulting from unintentional criminal acts of insured, such as reckless endangerment, did not violate public policy
• stating that interpreting “criminal acts” to include unintentional crimes “is supported by nearly every jurisdiction in our country which has examined that phrase”
• refusing to restrict the meaning of the term “ ‘criminal acts’ to just intentional criminal acts”
• noting that words and phrases cannot be interpreted in isolation
• “[T]he use of ‘reasonably’ implies a removed observer, looking at the facts from a neutral, ‘reasonable’ perspective.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).