Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Jungling

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 court would not read an insurance contract as excluding coverage for intentional acts when the contract did not contain any such a exclusionary provision but did affirmatively list other exclusionary provisions
• indicating that “insurance policies are in the nature of adhesion contracts”
• indicating that “insurance policies are in the nature of adhesion contracts.”
• “No fact 16 question arises if the only conflict concerns legal consequences flowing from undisputed facts.”
• ‘‘[c]ourts in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Oregon engage in a spe- cific analysis to determine whether coverage of a partic- ular act is against public policy [when] the policy has no intentional-acts exclusion’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).