Cavalier Mfg. Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau

How courts have described this case

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

• construing an identical exclusionary clause and holding that it did not apply to an employee’s suit against his employer for intentional misconduct that was “substantially certain” to cause the injuries that occurred
• “[T]he terms of an insurance contract are interpreted according to the definitions set forth therein, or, if none are provided, are given a meaning in accordance with their common usage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).