Taber v. Rauch

How courts have described this case

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

• applying New York law and acknowledging \the case law narrowly construing the sistership exclusion and the ambiguity in the relevant policy language\
• discussing various trigger it incorrectly determined that accrual before February 1996 theories
• “[U]nder New York law, the exclusionary effect of policy language, not its placement, controls allocation of the burden of proof.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).