3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 14 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 Hoffman García v. Metrohealth, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hoffman García v. Metrohealth, Inc. Anchor | green | “ambiguity does not exist simply because the parties disagree about the proper interpretation of a policy provision.” | 5 |
| 2 | Hoffman García v. Metrohealth, Inc. | green | “may be found where the policy's language is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” | 5 |
| 3 | Metlife Capital Corp. v. Westchester Fire Insurance | green | “be resolved in the manner least favorable to the insurer ... this praxis does not compel or require courts to interpret a clear, unambiguous clause that favors the insurer in a manner that would benefit the insured.” | 4 |
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.