Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Overlook, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that every claim from the underlying lawsuit implicated the pollution exclusion because “every claim in the underlying ... complaint implicates the defective drywall as either the basis for the claim, or the cause of the resulting damages”
• looking first to City of Chesapeake for guidance as to how the Supreme Court of Virginia would apply Virginia law to a pollution exclusion
• applying similar state court allegations of injuries to a similarly worded pollution exclusion and finding that the alleged injuries constituted either “bodily injury” or “property damage” as defined by the insurance policy
• applying a similar form of analysis when determining whether a pollution exclusion applied to bar coverage of claims arising from the installation of Chinese drywall asserted by a homeowner in state court
• “[T]he doctrine is used . . . to clarify an ambiguity, not create one.”
• “Under Virginia law, the Court is not free to find an ambiguity in a defined term solely because the definition chosen by the parties differs from what might otherwise be the commonly recognized definition of the term.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).