Hagen v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that the phrase “arising out of’ should be interpreted differently because it appears in an exclusionary clause instead of in a coverage provision of an automobile liability policy
• “Regardless of the allegations of the complaint, it is the underlying facts that determine the duty to indemnify.”
• “Regardless of the allegations of the complaint, it is the underlying facts that determine the duty to indemnify.”
• “[I]f a policy . . . is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms.”
• “Regardless of the allegations pf the complaint, it is the underlying facts that determine the duty to indemnify.”
• policy excluding coverage for injuries “arising out of the ... operation, use ... of any automobile ... operated by ... the insured” is not ambiguous in that it “clearly excludes injuries arising out of the use of a vehicle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).