Thomas v. Hager

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that in Jones and Ritchie, “it was undisputed that the definition of underinsured motor vehicle was satisfied and that some level of underinsured motor vehicle coverage applied.”
• rejecting the Fanning court’s “suggestion] that ... in order to avoid being ambiguous, Progressive’s policy would need to state on the declarations page the “manner in which the[] maximum limits [reflected on the declarations page] could be reduced” or “nullified.”
• rejecting the Fanning court’s “suggestion] that ... in order to avoid being ambiguous, Progressive’s policy would need to state on the declarations page the ‘manner in which the[] maximum limits [reflected on the declarations page] could be reduced’ or ‘nullified.’ ”
• in Ritchie, “it was undisputed that the definition of underinsured motor vehicle was satisfied and that some level of underinsured motor vehicle coverage applied.”
• “Rodriguez expressly prohibits a court from finding an ambiguity solely by giving effect to the insured’s reasonable expectation.”
• “Rodriguez expressly prohibits a court from finding an ambiguity solely by giving effect to the insured’s reasonable expectation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).