Millar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• court may not invent an ambiguity and resolve it to find coverage where none exists under policy
• policyholder’s home damaged when soil beneath it sank due to water escaping from broken sprinkler system; court found earth movement exclusion unambiguous and denied coverage
• \[T]he `efficient moving cause' rule must yield to the language of the insurance policy in question.\
• \The reasonable expectation doctrine applies to events at the time coverage is purchased. Subsequent events are irrelevant.\
• a contractual term “is not ambiguous . . . merely because one party assigns a different meaning to it in accordance with his or her own interest’
• \[E]xpectation of coverage must be objectively reasonable.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).