Kentwood Lumber Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles with separate UIM coverages and separate premiums
• holding that the antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles with separate UIM coverages and separate premiums
• court held that antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles on the declarations page with separate coverages and separate premiums listed for each vehicle
• “Under Illinois law, the interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law.”
• court held that antistacking clause was ambiguous because the declarations page to which the clause referred listed two vehicles on the declarations page with separate coverages and separate premiums listed for each vehicle
• “The Bruder dicta predicts that the Illinois Supreme Court would find the anti-stacking clause ambiguous when viewed in conjunction with the columnar arrangement of the declarations page, and would therefore rule in favor of coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).