Nazia, Inc. v. Amscot Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the parties were “entitled to offer extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the insurer and the insured at the time the policy was purchased” to resolve an ambiguity regarding the policy’s coverage
• remanding for review of extrinsic evidence regarding whether parties’ intended policy to be “primary” or “excess” where policy was ambiguous on matter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).