Jones v. Bagley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding expert testimony concerning insurance industry customs and practices admissible and any gaps or inconsistencies in testimony went to opinion’s weight
• noting that a court “may not make credibility determinations” at summary judgment
• allowing an expert to testify on custom and practice based on experience 11 where he explained how his experiences informed his testimony
• considering custom and usage in the insurance industry to assess the meaning of a “per occurrence” provision in a property insurance policy
• interpreting “the terms of more than thirty separate insurance contracts that together provide the total coverage” as individual contracts with different definitions of “occurrence” rather than as a single contract
• “[W]ith respect to a negotiated agreement, a party‟s subjective understanding, while not controlling, may shed light on the state of those negotiations and could bear on that party‟s objective actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).