Joshua Munroe v. Continental Western Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that policy providing for coverage limit “[r]egardless of the number of covered ‘autos,’ ‘insureds,’ premiums paid, claims made or vehicles” unambiguously limited recovery “regardless of the number of vehicles or people involved in the accident”
• finding that a party’s “failure to timely file their cross petition does not preclude review of” the issue raised by a cross-appeal
• “Courts must also endeavor to give each provision a reasonable meaning and to avoid an interpretation that renders some provisions useless or redundant.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).