Grinnell Select Insurance Company v. Martha Baker

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to follow Yates and Hall, holding that an unambiguous antistacking clause would be enforced
• declining to follow Yates and Hall , holding that an unambiguous antistacking clause would be enforced
• construing similar provision and concluding that “[i]t is hard to imagine clearer language”
• referring to an antistacking clause as a “disambiguator” and noting that “[t]o see ambiguity in the policy is to learn why the anti-stacking clause was included; it is not remotely to justify overriding the anti- stacking clause”
• referring to an antistacking clause as a “disambiguator” and noting that “[t]o see ambiguity in the policy is to learn why the anti-stacking clause was included; it is not remotely to justify overriding the anti- stacking clause”
• “This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of: 1. ‘Insureds’; 2. Claims made; 3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or 4. Vehicles involved in the auto accident.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).