Loyal Crownover vs. Traveler’s Casualty & Surety
Year 2002
Court Nevada Supreme Court
Case Number Docket No. 40234
Issue
  • Exclusions
State
  • Nevada

Exclusions in a policy cannot be buried in the boilerplate verbiage of the grant of coverage. In this policy the promise of a defense under these circumstances was clear and invoked the insurer’s duty to defend.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by Gordon M. Cowan, Esq. of the Law Offices of Gordon M. Cowan. Of Counsel: Eugene R. Anderson, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, PC, and Amy Bach, Esq.
Related Cases
Banerji, Julian vs. John Hancock Life Insurance and Unum Provident
Year: 2003
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Massachusetts
Gulf Insurance Company v. Transatlantic Reinsurance, et al.
Year: 2003
Court:
Case Number: New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division, First Department
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • New York

The purpose of UP’s brief was to educate the court on a wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.
Loyal Crownover vs. Traveler’s Casualty & Surety
Year: 2002
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 40234
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Nevada

Exclusions in a policy cannot be buried in the boilerplate verbiage of the grant of coverage. In this policy the promise of a defense under these circumstances was clear and invoked the insurer’s duty to defend.
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. vs. City of Desert Hot Springs et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 02-57082, 03-55394
Issue:
  • Exclusions
  • Poor draftsmanship
State:
  • California

Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer’s argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.