Murray v. Remuck

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 policy provision that excluded coverage for any insured “employed or engaged in an automobile business” was not contrary to public policy
• holding automobile business exclusion not contrary to public policy or minimum statutory requirements
• holding automobile business exclusion not contrary to public policy or minimum statutory requirements
• upholding exclusion of UM coverage in circumstances when insured was employed or engaged in duties in connection with an automobile business

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).