EFH v. Lexington Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding once an exclusion has been proven by the insurer, the burden once again is placed on the insured to demonstrate the exception to the exclusion
• interpreting the clause \we have the right to ... [p]rovide a defense\ and concluding that this language was not ambiguous
• holding: “Once the insured shows coverage, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove an exclusion applies to the coverage. If there is an exception to the exclusion, the burden once again is placed on the insured to demonstrate the exception to the exclusion”
• “[I]f the language of the policy is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and a court will resolve such ambiguity in favor of the insured.”
• “When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as it was written.”
• “When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as it was written.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).