Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 19 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Arrowood Indem. Co. v. King.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arrowood Indem. Co. v. King Anchor | green | “must look at the contract as a whole, consider all relevant portions together and, if possible, give operative effect to every provision in order to reach a reasonable overall result.” | 6 |
| 2 | Pacific Indemnity Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. | green | “an insurance policy is to be interpreted by the same general rules that govern the construction of any written contract and enforced in accordance with the real intent of the parties as expressed in the language employed in the policy and the policy words must be accorded their …” | 6 |
| 3 | Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Litchfield Mutual Fire Insurance | green | “where the insurer has sufficient knowledge to show that a claim falls within coverage even though not properly pleaded to invoke coverage, the carrier cannot make the face of the complaint argument.” | 4 |
| 4 | Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Litchfield Mutual Fire Insurance | green | “connecticut courts construe broad policy language in favor of imposing a duty to defend on the insurer.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.