Peterborough Oil Co. v. Great American Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing exclusion for employment-related acts and omissions, but not applying it to claim by former employee for malicious prosecution
• finding defendant not liable where “[i]ts position was supported by case law, and did not ignore either the clear terms of the policy language or any salient facts.”
• “As applied in these circumstances, therefore, the phrase ‘employment-related act or omission’ is inherently ambiguous.”
• “If every injury arising out of an act that somehow related to an employee were to be excluded, the exclusion would effectively swallow the coverage. The term is therefore necessarily narrower.”
• “While it is true that the termination and the malicious prosecution were based on many of the same facts ..., it does not follow that the latter arose out of the former.”
• “[U]nder California law, ... courts have interpreted the phrase ‘arising out of to require a much more direct causal connection, one more akin to proximate cause, than required under Massachusetts law.” (citing HS Servs., 109 F,3d at 647)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).