Catalina Enterprises, Incorporated Pension Trust v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and Jennings Insurance Associates, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding vacancy exclusion applied because building contained nothing to indicate that it was occupied or being used for its normal purpose – industrial storage
• determining that a warehouse was vacant where the objects left on the premises did not indicate that the building was occupied
• looking to the “broader intention of the parties” to determine whether a policy insured a vacant building
• interpreting vacant to require that a structure be entirely devoid of any contents whatsoever would virtually eliminate the vacancy exclusion from the policy
• “The reason for vacancy exclusions in fire insurance policies is obvious: empty buildings without occupants or activities pose increased fire risks.”
• “It is axiomatic under Maryland law that a court should avoid reading a contract in a way that produces an absurd result, especially when a reasonable interpretation is available.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).