Co-Operative Insurance Companies v. Woodward

How courts have described this case

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

• holding no duty to defend where there is \no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer may be required to indemnify.\
• noting that there is no meaningful difference between the terms “an insured” and “any insured,” and holding that “such language has a collective effect and bars all insureds from coverage” even if the policy contains a separation of insureds clause
• noting that there is no meaningful difference between the terms “an insured” and “any insured,” and holding that “such language has a collective effect and bars all insureds from coverage” even if the policy contains a separation of insureds clause
• holding severability clause “cannot override” an “an insured” exclusion
• rejecting Minkler and finding that exclusion of coverage for loss caused by intentional acts of “an insured” applied to both insureds under the policy, despite existence of a severability clause, as the exclusion was unambiguous
• “Insurers have a duty to defend when the claim against the insured ‘might be of the type covered by the policy.’” (quoting Garneau v. Curtis & Bedell, Inc., 610 A.2d 132, 134 (Vt. 1992)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).