Opry Mills Mall Limited Partnership et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al
Year 2018
Court Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number M 2016 01763-SC-R11-CV
Issue
  • policyholder reasonable expectations
State
  • Tennessee

The rules of insurance policy interpretation in the States of Tennessee and Indiana are well-settled law and should continue to preserve policyholders’ reasonable expectations of coverage. Ambiguous policy wording should be construed in favor of coverage.

Related Docs
Author This brief was prepared pro bono by Marshall Gilinsky and Arthur Armstrong of Anderson Kill, P.C. and by Amy Farrar of Farrar Wright
Related Cases
Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Year: 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Number: 18-2206
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Insurance contract interpretation
  • policyholder reasonable expectations
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In its brief, UP focuses on three grounds for reversal of the district court opinion: The District Court failed to interpret the insurance policies as a whole and rendered products liability coverage illusory in Pennsylvania. The District Court’s interpretation of “occurence” contravenes the insured’s reasonable…
Opry Mills Mall Limited Partnership et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al
Year: 2018
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number: M 2016 01763-SC-R11-CV
Issue:
  • policyholder reasonable expectations
State:
  • Tennessee

The rules of insurance policy interpretation in the States of Tennessee and Indiana are well-settled law and should continue to preserve policyholders’ reasonable expectations of coverage. Ambiguous policy wording should be construed in favor of coverage.