Pacific Indemnity Co. v. N. A., 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 exclusionary provision for theft barred recovery, and noting that “[b]urglary is not involved in this case as there is no evidence whatsoever indicating burglary”
• holding that exclusionary provision for theft barred recovery, and noting that “[b]urglary is not involved in this case as there is no evidence whatsoever indicating burglary”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).