State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Longden

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Harris departed from “the general rule” because of confusing disjunctive “occurrences or accidents” provision
• concluding \as a matter of law that the policy did not cover a risk as contended by [insured]\ and therefore insurer had no duty to defend
• distinguishing Sam Harris because the policy in Longden did not contain the disjunctive phrase \occurrence or accidents\ but referred only to \accidents\
• distinguishing Sam Harris because the policy in Longden did not contain the disjunctive phrase \occurrence or accidents\ but referred only to \accidents\
• distinguishing Sam Harris because the policy in Longden did not contain the disjunctive phrase “occurrence or accidents” but referred only to “accidents”
• distinguishing Sam Harris because the policy in Longden did not contain the disjunctive phrase “occurrence or accidents” but referred only to “accidents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).