The Medical Protective Company v. William Watkins

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that one of defendants' arguments was waived for failure to raise issue in district court
• noting that “[t]his rule has been applied liberally in Pennsylvania”
• considering the insured’s application for insurance coverage in determining the insured’s expectation
• \When reviewing an order granting summary judgment we exercise plenary review and apply the same test the district court should have applied.\
• “Ambiguous provisions in an insurance policy must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured; any reasonable interpretation offered by the insured, therefore, must control.”
• although concluding that the exclusion clause at issue was ambiguous, we noted that the reasonable expectations of the insured control, “‘even if they are contrary to the explicit terms of the policy’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).