Level 3 Communications, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company and Pacific Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insured had no basis to claim estoppel due to insurer’s delay in asserting an exclusion because the insured “could read the insurance contract as well as [the insurer’ and there, staring it in the face; was a clause that clearly barred coverage”
• noting that the plain language of the “on behalf of” language of the “insured v. insured” exclusion applies even to an unnamed class member or a “passive” litigant
• refusing to find, under the facts of the case, that the presence of one insured invalidated all coverage under the policy
• applying Nebraska law to a parallel insured vs. insured exclusion and policy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).