Wilkinson v. Gill

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the named insured, as an employer, “would not intend coverage for his employee” when the employer “had already covered his employees with a workmen’s compensation policy”
• commenting on the insignificance of modest variations among severability-of-inter-ests clauses as compared with the importance of clarity in policy exclusions
• commenting on the insignificance of modest variations among severability-of-interests clauses as compared with the importance of clarity in policy exclusions
• commenting on the insignificance of modest variations among severability-of-interests clauses as compared with the importance of clarity in policy exclusions
• commenting on the insignificance of modest variations among severability-of-interests clauses as compared with the importance of clarity in policy exclusions
• failure to read a contract is neither a defense nor an excuse and will not provide grounds for avoiding the contract or any provision therein

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).