Rodriguez v. Windsor Insurance

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 who was a “named insured” was entitled to stacking of uninsured motorist coverage
• stating that an insurer can limit its stacking liability contractually through “a truly unambiguous antistacking clause” relating to uninsured motorist coverage (emphasis omitted)
• recognizing that uninsured motorist insurance is not tied to any vehicle listed in the policy, and that for an insured to receive benefits, it is irrelevant that any vehicle, much less any particular one listed vehicle in the policy, is involved in an accident
• recognizing that uninsured motorist insurance is not tied to any vehicle listed in the policy, and that for an insured to receive benefits, it is irrelevant that any vehicle, much less any particular one listed vehicle in the policy, is involved in an accident
• noting that our past cases have “evolved a strong judicial policy” favoring stacking
• stating that “[o]ur past cases have evolved a strong judicial policy ... favoring stacking”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).