National U. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegations of intentional acts causing injury resulted in the complaint falling outside the coverage of an insurance policy insuring only against accidental injury
• holding that trial court erred in considering evidence on the issue because the allegations of complaint are controlling
• holding that allegations of intentional acts fell outside policy coverage
• stating that the duty to defend arises “where the complaint alleges a state of facts within the coverage of the insurance policy”
• holding that an insurer was not required to defend because, despite a stipulation that the case would have been tried on “negligence grounds rather than willful conduct,” the complaint alleged only intentional acts of the insured, which were not covered by the policy
• “When the actual facts are inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint, the allegations in the complaint control in determining the insurer’s duty to defend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).