Obenland v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act because their auto insurance policy clearly and unambiguously described the type and amount of coverage they had purchased
• “it would be unfair and unwise to hold that an attempt by an insurance company to improve the language contained in its policy constituted an admission that the original language was ambiguous”
• “later revisions were irrelevant to whether the clause as originally written was ambiguous”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).