Shadbolt v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the terms of a policy may be ambiguous “when they could reasonably be given a broader or a narrower meaning, depending upon the intention of the parties in the context in which such words are used by them”
• “words or terms may be ambiguous in the legal sense, when they could reasonably be given a broader or narrower meaning, depending upon the intention of the parties in the context in which such words are used”
• ‘words or terms maybe ambiguous in the legal sense, when they could reasonably be given a broader or narrower meaning, depending upon the intention of the parties in which such words are used’
• “in Wallace, the issue was not whether the automobile was, in fact, ‘regularly or frequently used’ by the insured, as in this case, but whether the automobile was furnished for regular use” (emphasis in original)
• “[W]e have said many times that if there is an ambiguity in the terms of an insurance policy, any reasonable doubt as to the intended meaning of such terms will be resolved against the insurance company and in favor of extending coverage to the insured.” (Footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).