Utica Mutual Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was \nothing in the [automobile liability insurance] Act which mandates that certified policies provide greater protection to the insured than the standard policy. \ (Emphasis added.)
• holding that there was \nothing in the [automobile liability insurance] Act which mandates that certified policies provide greater protection to the insured than the standard policy. \ (Emphasis added.)
• providing that “[a]n intentional act is neither an ‘occurrence’ nor an ‘accident’ and therefore is not covered by the standard policy”
• holding motor vehicle insurer was not required to provide coverage for injuries caused by an intentional act because Virginia law only requires coverage for losses “caused by accident”
• holding motor vehicle insurer was not required to provide coverage for injuries caused by an intentional act because Virginia law only requires coverage for losses \caused by accident\
• accident is an \incident unexpected from the viewpoint of the insured\; intentional actions are not accidents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).