Hartford Insurance v. Hertz Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statutes required Hertz to provide underinsurance benefits to lessee although rental agreement explicitly excluded uninsured coverage and did not mention underinsurance
• in construing statutory term, “we may also look to relevant provisions of other parts of the statute”
• in construing statutory term, \we may also look to relevant provisions of other parts of the statute\
• “failure to take a cross [petition] precludes a party from obtaining a judgment more favorable to it than the judgment entered below”
• “[Wjhen the Legislature has employed specific language in one part of a statute, but not in another part which deals with the same topic, the earlier language should not be implied where it is not present”
• “As a general rule, when the Legislature has employed specific language in one part of a statute, but not in another part which deals with the same topic, the earlier language should not be implied where it is not present”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).