Eaton v. Henagan

How courts have described this case

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

• “Omitting ‘with,’ the phrase would read: ‘any person or organization whom you have agreed by written contract to add,’ and Gilbane JV’s position would have merit.”
• affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant, where the insurance policy’s terms required a written contract between the named insured an additional insured and no such written contract was present
• rejecting the argument that the average insured would understand the word “with” to have no meaning, and noting that “contracting parties who desire [a different conclusion] . . . [should] remove the word ‘with’ from their future contracts”
• privity required where policy recognized as an additional insured any person or entity “with whom” the named insured agreed to add as an additional insured in a written contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).