Schultz v. Erie Insurance Group

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \faulty workmanship\ is not ambiguous, in part because an insurer likely meant to include both perils—the process and the product— in the exclusion
• concluding that it means both
• concluding that it means both
• interpreting a similar exclusion and concluding that the word “ ‘workmanship,’ falling between planning and maintenance, at the very least signifies a component of the building process leading up to a finished product.”
• “[T]o a great extent, the context of the policy gives meaning to the individual terms.”
• “Read in context, ‘workmanship,’ falling between planning and maintenance, at the very least signifies a component of the building process leading up to a finished product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).