Epps v. Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that fire- insurance policy had two requirements for coverage: (1) dwelling must be place wherein insured resided, and (2
• holding that fire-insurance policy had two requirements for coverage: (1) dwelling must be place wherein insured resided, and (2
• construing similar policy condition as resulting in no coverage because named insured did not live at residence premises
• construing similar policy condition as resulting in no coverage because named insured did not live at residence premises
• determining no ambiguity in the policy and rental house clearly does not meet the requirement that the dwelling must be the place where the insured resides
• use of word “and” between terms defining “residence premises” in fire insurance contract indicates both conditions required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).