Lott v. Scottsdale Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[the insurer] has a duty to defend all allegations in the Underlying Complaint in the event that any are covered and, as discussed, [some are covered].”
• entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) on claim that “Scottsdale has a duty to defend ICA/PPC in the Underlying Lawsuit”
• interpreting ambiguous insurance policy provisions under Virginia law and noting that “when unambiguous, [insurance policies] must be given their plain and ordinary meaning” but that “policy language is not always clear and unambiguous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).