Legal Opinion · Dissent

Allstate Insurance Company v. Mark Burrough, Garnette Bell, Individually and as Next Friend of Kenyatta Williams

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 28, 1997No. 96-1330Published

1DissentMcMILLIAN, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. Because I believe that the exclusion for “criminal acts” is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of Burrough as a matter of law and, alternatively, that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Burrough’s reasonable expectations, I would reverse.

To prevail in its declaratory judgment action, Allstate was required to prove that the policy’s criminal acts exclusion applied to exclude Burrough from coverage by showing that: (1) Burrough committed a criminal act to which the criminal acts exclusion applied6 and (2) Burrough could have reasonably expected…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Get Away Club, Inc. v. Vic Coleman, Jim SnyderCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
  5. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of the State Bank of Greenwald, Minnesota v. Douglas A. Winter Bernadine Winter Robert J. OsendorfCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API