Taurus Holdings v. US Fidelity

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “although ambiguous provisions are construed in favor of coverage, to allow for such a construction the provision must actually be ambiguous”
• noting that the term \arising out of\ is not ambiguous and broader than the term \caused by\
• finding that delineation of ACV and RCV cannot be required in appraisal over the objection of a party where the policy’s plain language does not consider it
• explaining that “arising out of” 4 Case: 19-10326 Date Filed: 06/13/2019 Page: 5 of 5 “should be interpreted broadly” and that the phrase merely “requires some casual connection[] or relationship”
• holding the phrase “arising out of” is “broader in meaning than the term ‘caused by’ and means ‘originating from,’ ‘having its origin in,’ ‘growing out of,’ ‘flowing from,’ ‘incident to’ or ‘having a connection with’”
• finding that the use of the “word ‘any’ before ‘goods or products’ connote[d] a scope extending beyond merely defective products” and that “nothing in the text of the exclusion suggests it applies only to defective products”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).