Polaroid Corp. v. the Travelers Indemnity Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “an insurer should be liable for the natural consequences of a breach of contract that places its insured in a worse position”
• noting where neither insured nor insurer expected that policy would cover pollution claims, policy would be reformed to exclude pollution claims
• declining to decide whether the insurer or the insured has the burden of proving that a pollution discharge was sudden and accidental, falling into an exception to an exclusion
• “a breach of the duty to defend is a breach of the insurance contract, and the insured is entitled to contract damages caused by the breach”
• “When an insurer’s good faith refusal to defend an insured is ruled to have been unjustified, there is no reason not to apply normal contract damages principles”
• where there is mutual mistake, a contract may be reformed by the court to reflect the intent of the parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).