Harrell v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Tennessee, from this case forward, was following the majority of jurisdictions which did not distinguish between “accidental means” and “accidental results”
• abandoning the distinction between \accidental means\ and \accidental results\ because \it is inconceivable that the average insured would understand the fine distinction\
• stating that ―an insured should not have to consult a long line of case law or law review articles and treatises to determine the coverage he or she is purchasing under an insurance policy,‖ and considering what ―the average insured would understand‖
• “[A]n insured should not have to consult a long line of case law or law review articles and treatises to determine the coverage he or she is purchasing under an insurance policy.”
• terms not defined in insurance contracts must be construed using their “common and ordinary meaning, with ambiguous language construed against the insurance company and in favor of the insured”
• “[A]n insured should not have to consult a long line of case law or law review articles and treatises to determine the coverage he or she is purchasing under an insurance policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).