Vermont Mutual Insurance v. Singleton Ex Rel. Singleton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that intentional-act exclusion did not apply to exclude coverage for injuries sustained in a fist fight
• holding that intentional-act exclusion did not apply to exclude coverage for injuries sustained in a fist fight
• providing coverage where a teenager acted in self-defense when he struck another teenager but did not intend the extensive eye injuries inflicted
• “Where the rights of innocent parties are jeopardized by a failure of the insured to comply with the notice requirements of an insurance policy, the insurer must show substantial prejudice to the insurer’s rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).