Dickson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that changing language in particular policy from language used in other exclusionary clauses “manifested an obvious intent” that the clause not be read the same as the other clauses
• “Exclusionary clauses in an insurance policy are to be construed most strongly against the company writing the policy, and in favor of the insured.”
• “Exclusionary 27 clauses in an insurance policy are to be construed most strongly against the company writing the policy, 28 and in favor of the insured.”
• one-year clause; damage August 1, 1963; claim rejected July 14, 1964; suit was timely on February 8, 1965: “Plaintiffs had a reasonable time after notification of the final denial of liability to commence their action.”
• one-year clause; damage August 1, 1963; claim rejected July 14, 1964; suit was timely on February 8, 1965: \Plaintiffs had a reasonable time after notification of the final denial of liability to commence their action.\
• \Contentions may not be presented for the first time in the reply brief.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).