Karen Varta BABIKIAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, if “two reasonable and fair interpretations are possible,” then “an ambiguity exists” and “we must resolve it in favor of the insured” (citation omitted)
• rejecting an interpretation of an ERISA plan that would render part of the plan superfluous
• in determining whether language is ambiguous, federal courts \interpret terms in ERISA insurance policies in an ordinary and popular sense as would a person of average intelligence and experience\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).