Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

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 a court finds a policy provision is ambiguous, it “must then select the interpretation which gives the greater indemnity to the insured”
• holding that, if a court finds a policy provision is ambiguous, it “must then select the interpretation which gives the greater indemnity to the insured”
• holding that a similar anti-concurrent causation clause rendered the applicable provision effective even when another peril contributes to the damage
• holding that a similar anti-concurrent causation clause rendered the applicable provision effective even when another peril contributes to the damage
• holding an anticoncurrent causation clause was enforceable and not subject to interpretation because the language was not ambiguous
• finding anti-concurrent causation provision unambiguous and enforceable and excluding coverage where loss caused by combination of covered peril [hurricane winds] and excluded peril [flooding]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).