Wilkins v. Genzyme Corporation

Oral argument

• Argued

  55 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that execution of section 1738(d) waiver does demonstrate knowing waiver of inter-policy stacking in single-vehicle policy because, inter alia, it could not refer to intra-policy stacking because it only applies to multiple vehicle policies
• holding that this Court may affirm on any basis
• indicating that exclusions and policy upon which insureds were seeking UIM coverage were “relevant to the legal issues presented in this case”
• holding that this Court may affirm on any basis
• acknowledging that household exclusions have been upheld as congruent with the public policy of containing insurance costs for insureds and preventing insurers from being held responsible for unforeseeable coverage
• explaining the Insurance Commissioner stated there were “at least two” situations in which single-vehicle policy holders could benefit from stacking

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).