Yates v. Farmers Automobile 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 contradictory language in a contract is ambiguous
• a policy was ambiguous where an antistacking clause contradicted the declarations page which could have been read to permit stacking
• a policy was ambiguous where an antistacking clause contradicted the declarations page which could have been read to permit stacking
• “Since the policy contains inconsistent provisions, we must construe the policy in a manner that is most favorable to the 2 Those being: “malicious, criminal, dishonest or fraudulent [acts] or any knowing violation of rights or laws.” 30 1-22-1529 insured.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).