Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Ainsworth Seed Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the decision in Envirodyne to be “persuasive” and permitting an affidavit to be considered in determining coverage
• finding the decision in Envirodyne to be “persuasive” and permitting an affidavit to be considered in determining coverage
• explaining that the insureds “will be entitled to new consideration” on the issue of the insurer’s duty to defend if 5 For example, Travelers cites a case from the Illinois Appellate Court, Grainger v. Harrah’s Casino, 18 N.E.3d 265 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014
• \[N]o consideration [can] be given to factual matters which might be relevant to issues in the underlying litigation.\ (Citation omitted.)
• “[N]o consideration [can] be given to factual matters which might be relevant to issues in the underlying litigation.” (Citation omitted.)
• in finding no duty to defend in product liability case, appellate court approved insurer’s reliance upon statements insured had made in an affidavit that demonstrated policy’s completed-operations hazard exclusion applied and barred coverage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).