Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the sudden-and-accidental exception did not apply because “ac- cidental spills” occurred “in the ordinary course of busi- ness”
• concluding that the sudden-and-accidental exception did not apply because “ac- cidental spills” occurred “in the ordinary course of busi- ness”
• no duty to defend because no suit was filed in that no judicial proceeding was commenced
• no duty to defend because no suit was filed in that no judicial proceeding was commenced
• \Lapham-Hickey is to be given retroactive application” \because the supreme court’s opinion in Lapham-Hickey did not state that it was prospective and the 'opinion on its face applies to the litigants in the Lapham-Hickey case’ ”
• evidence showed that regular spills during manufacturing process were expected by the insured

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).