Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• holding step-down provision and language in addendum limiting liability to “limits required by Kansas law” might be “stylistically inelegant,” but it was not ambiguous as a reasonable person would not be misled as to the policy limits
• “Under DeWitt, an invalid provision limiting liability is not completely abrogated by the KAIRA. Rather, the provision is only voided to the point necessary to bring the policy in compliance with the minimum coverage required by the Act, that is, $25,000 per person per occurrence.”
• “The policy must be read as a whole.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).