Knowles v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that exclusionary clause was unambiguous and applicable, but finding it repugnant to the insuring clause of the particular policy at issue.
• finding exclusion for \expected or intended\ harm in irreconcilable conflict with clause insuring wrongful eviction and other intentional torts
• noting “the public policy that an insured not be encouraged to act wrongfully because of knowledge that such an act is insured”
• rejecting interpretation of insurance contract exclusionary clause that would exclude coverage only if the insured intended the exact harm which resulted
• declining on policy grounds to adopt interpretation of “expected or intended” acts exclusion that would have limited exclusion to situations where insured acted with specific intention to cause the damage that occurred
• reiterating the rules that (1) exclusionary clauses are to be narrowly construed; (2) the clause is ambiguous if it is reasonably and fairly susceptible of different constructions; and (3) the ambiguous clause is to be construed against the insurer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).