Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kenner

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided February 21, 1990Published

1DissentMoore, Justice

The majority holds that the disputed policy language unambiguously allows Aetna to offset monies received from the tort-feasor against the insurer’s policy limits. I dissent because the wording of the policy is ambiguous. An equally plausible reading would offset amounts received from the tortfeasor against the victim’s total damages. Applying standard rules of construction, the policy must be interpreted against the insurer. Moreover, in contrast to the majority view, the latter interpretation is more consistent with the overriding purpose of 18 Del. C. § 3902 and other liability insurance…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Hallowell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1982
  2. Steigler v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1978
  3. Frank v. Horizon Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  4. James v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. ArmsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984

18 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