Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• Holding that plaintiff was not entitled to UIM coverage because the tortfeasor’s insurance coverage was equal to the limit of liability under plaintiff’s UIM policy
• explaining that “ambiguity arises when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the words used in the contract”
• stating that policy language contravening a statute is unenforceable
• stating that policy language contravening a statute is unenforceable
• finding an anti-stacking provision clear and unambiguous where it applied “regardless of the number of ‘insureds’; claims made; vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or vehicles involved in the accident”
• “[W]here insurance policies are unambiguous, they will be enforced as written absent a statute or public policy requiring coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).