St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Pryseski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the scope of a duty to defend is limited by the scope of the insurance policy’s coverage
• holding that “the tort suit determined the scope of employment issue” because of “allegations [in] the tort suit concerning scope of employment”
• concluding that policy extending to “any employee ... while acting within the scope of his duties” limited coverage to actions taken within the scope of employment
• holding that, as the policy was presented in the record, there existed an ambiguity, and that ambiguity should be resolved against the insurer, St. Paul, because it is the party that prepared the contract.
• holding, inter alia, that the “scope of employment” issue was to be determined in a pending tort suit and not in a declaratory judgment action
• recognizing the “principle of contract construction that where one party is responsible for the drafting of an instrument, absent evidence indicating the intention of the parties, any ambiguity will be resolved against that party”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).