Tata v. Nichols

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the plaintiff was “upon” each of the two vehicles between which he was standing for purposes of jump starting one of them and thus occupying both of them for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage
• applying this rule to an insurance contract and finding ambiguity because the term had been interpreted differently by various other jurisdictions considering the issue
• “[T]he word [“upon”] has no precise meaning and is, therefore, sufficiently ambiguous . . . to require 2 (...continued) 27, 2009

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).