Worcester Mutual Insurance v. Marnell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that co-insured parents not barred from coverage under homeowner’s liability policy when damages resulting from child’s automobile accident were excluded from the policy
• holding that there was coverage even though the court's interpretation of the policy made the word \any” in the auto exclusion clause superfluous; stating that interpreting \any” to mean otherwise would “render the entire severability of insurance clause meaningless”
• finding that the severability clause required the exclusion to be read solely against the each insured individually
• recognizing “the long-standing rule of construction that the favored interpretation of an insurance policy is one which ‘best effectuates the main manifested design of the parties’”
• reading of a contract “which gives a reasonable meaning to all [its] provisions ... is to be preferred to one which leaves a part useless or inexplicable”[quotation and citation omitted]
• severability clause provides that the policy \applies separately to each insured\ and \requires that each insured be treated as having a separate insurance policy.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).