Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Hopkins Sporting Goods, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• justifying the contra proferentem rule on the ground that insurance contracts are adhesion contracts as to the insured
• interpreting policy language providing only that coverage would not be cumulative from year-to-year or period-to-period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).