Meyer v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Pennsylvania law and explaining that courts may consider “whether alternative or more precise language, if used, would have put the matter beyond reasonable question”
• affirming the district court’s conclusion that “where two reasonable interpretations creating an ambiguity exist, [its role was] to choose the interpretation favoring the insured”
• “A policy must be read as a whole and its meaning construed according to its plain language.”
• “[T]his Court takes care not to render other portions of a provision or contract superfluous when construing contract language.” (alteration in original) (citations omitted)
• “A policy must be read as a whole and its meaning construed according to its plain language.”
• “Under Pennsylvania law, an insurance contract is governed by the law of the state in which the contract was made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).