Gore Design Completions, Ltd. v. Hartford Fire Ins.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when the insured was hired for “engineering of an in-flight entertainment/cabin management system,” exclusion j(6) only “exclude[d] coverage for the damage to the IFE/CMS itself (or, perhaps, the electrical system
• holding that court must adopt insured’s interpretation of an ambiguous exclusion
• holding that court must adopt insured's interpretation of an ambiguous exclusion
• noting that “[t]he rule is very favorable to insureds because doubts are resolved in the insured’s favor”
• explaining that “[t]he rule is very favorable to insureds because doubts are resolved in the insured’s favor”
• noting that “[t]he rule is very favorable to insureds because doubts are resolved in the insured’s favor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).