Williams v. Rensch

How courts have described this case

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

• “There is no exception to the definition of “loss” for cosmetic damage, or any other kind of particular damage.”
• “[E]ven without a measurable ‘loss’ in value or in function, the policy expressly contemplates the possibility that there may still be ‘damage,’ presumably giving it a different meaning than the word ‘loss.’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Advance's argument that Cincinnati should have ‘shown its work,’ right down to revealing the dictionary definitions the company reviewed internally when evaluating coverage, goes well beyond anything that the law requires to defeat an allegation of bad faith.”
• “Advance’s argument that Cincinnati should have ‘shown its work,’ right down to revealing the dictionary definitions the company reviewed internally when evaluating coverage, goes well beyond anything that the law requires to defeat an allegation of bad faith,”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).