Pemberton v. Grass

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant had not shown that the term “ACV,” which was undefined, could only be interpreted to include depreciation of labor costs
• holding that defendant had not shown that the term “ACV,” which was undefined, could only be interpreted to include depreciation of labor costs
• holding that an insurance policy did not unambiguously allow for labor depreciation where the term ACV was not defined
• emphasizing that “[t]he only question presented by defendant’s motion is whether, under Alabama law, the undefined term ‘actual cash value’ unambiguously includes depreciation of labor costs”
• explaining that “a reasonable insured could reasonably understand that labor does not depreciate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).