Virginia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “if disputed policy language is ambiguous and can be understood to have more than one meaning, we construe the language in favor of coverage and against the insurer”
• holding that “if disputed policy language is ambiguous and can be understood to have more than one meaning, we construe the language in favor of coverage and against the insurer”
• holding that anti-stacking language becomes ambiguous in light of different sets of coverage
• holding that policy did not clearly prevent stacking of coverage
• noting that insurance provisions must be construed to effectuate the parties’ intent
• noting that insurance provisions must be construed to effectuate the parties' intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).