Sturla, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that extending the scope of an insurance policy based on an exception to an exclusion “would run directly counter to the basic principle that exclusion clauses subtract from coverage rather than grant it” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating \the basic principle that exclusion clauses subtract from coverage rather than grant it\
• The insured, a distributor of carpet products, supplied defective carpeting which was installed in a condominium hotel project.
• ambiguity exists \only when the contract taken as a whole is reasonably subject to differing interpretation.\
• where there is no potential for indemnification, there is no duty to defend
• use of a New Jersey case interpreting similarly worded insurance policy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).