St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Powell-Walton-Milward, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that if an exclusionary term has two reasonable interpretations, the court should resolve any doubts in favor of the insured
• when “a repugnancy between two clauses” is present, “the contract shall be resolved to afford maximum coverage.”
• “As long as coverage is available under a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous clause, the insurer should not escape liability... .”
• “As long as coverage is available under a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous clause, the insurer should not escape liability . . . .”
• \Neither should a nonexistent ambiguity be utilized to resolve a policy against the company.\
• a court may only construe a policy against an insurer if the reading that grants coverage is reasonable in light of the policy’s plain language and the reasonable intent of the parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).