Kemper National Insurance Companies v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the exclusion at issue was \unambiguous\ because it \clearly defines the coverage\
• describing the \function\ of \exclusions\ to be \to restrict and shape the coverage otherwise afforded\ in the policy
• explaining the purpose of an exclusion “is to restrict and shape the coverage otherwise afforded”
• applying the substantive provisions of an endorsement to exclusions in the preceding form policy
• Under Kentucky law, each exclusion in an insurance policy “is to be read ‘independently of every other exclusion’ ” and “any applicable exclusion is sufficient to remove coverage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).