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.
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.