Volquardson v. Hartford Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that language identical to that in the intentional acts exclusion at issue in this case failed to provide the minimum coverage required by the New York standard fire insurance policy of 1943
• holding that language identical to that in the intentional acts exclusion at issue in this case failed to provide the minimum coverage required by the New York standard fire insurance policy of 1943
• “[w]hen construing a statute, an appellate court must look to the statute’s purpose and give to the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat it”
• “[Cjourts have determined that the phrase ‘the insured’ in an insurance policy creates a several obligation which excludes coverage only as to the individual insured who committed the proscribed act.”
• \[C]ourts have determined that the phrase `the insured' in an insurance policy creates a several obligation which excludes coverage only as to the individual insured who committed the proscribed act.\
• “We conclude that this [‘an insured’ language] means, simply and unambiguously, that if a loss is caused intentionally by someone who is insured under the policy, it is not covered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).