Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Swift Energy Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that \ Admiral and McCarthy . . . are consistent with the majority view in other jurisdictions\
• observing that “Admiral and McCarthy ... are consistent with the majority view in other jurisdictions”
• determining whether \injuries were caused by an accident arising out of the use of [a] truck\
• rejecting insurance company's argument that identical policy language limited endorsement's coverage to liability resulting from named insured's negligence and excludes liability arising out of the independent negligence of the additional insured
• “In Texas, when an insurance policy is ambiguous or inconsistent, the construction that would afford coverage to the insured must govern.”
• \Mid-Continent could have expressly stated in the Policy that liability not resulting from [the named insured's] sole negligence was not covered by the additional insured endorsement. It did not do so.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).