Huffman v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “this Court cannot create a doubt for the purpose of resolving it in favor of the insured ... where language in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, Pennsylvania courts must give effect to that language.”
• recognizing that “this Court cannot create a doubt for the purpose of resolving it in favor of the insured ... where language in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, Pennsylvania courts must give effect to that language.”
• whether extended care facility could be regarded as a “hospital” as defined by insured’s hospitalization policy
• held that the court will uphold the plain meaning of explicit exclusions since “a policyholder cannot reasonably expect unlimited coverage in the face of an explicit unambiguous limitation”
• held that an insurance policy can be drafted with explicit exclusions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).