Massachusetts Bay Insurance v. Vic Koenig Leasing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a substantially identical exclusion prevented coverage of the insured's wrongful repossession of an automobile
• explaining that complaint omitting allegation of communication to third party could not be read to plead state‐law claim for slander
• reaching forfeited choice-of-law issue because \we clearly think it is in the interest of justice to insure that district courts conduct choice-of-law analyses when conflicts questions are presented to them\
• reaching forfeited choice-of-law issue because “we clearly think it is in the interest of justice to insure that district courts conduct choice-of-law analyses when conflicts questions are presented to them”
• defining a “willful” action as “one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, . . . as distinguished from an act done . . . inadvertently”
• reaching forfeited choice-of-law issue because “we clearly think it is in the interest of justice to insure that district courts conduct choice-of-law analyses when conflicts questions are presented to them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).