Legal Opinion

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Kammerer

District Court, D. Maine

Decided April 26, 2019No. File No. 18-cv-02143 (ECT/SER)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Court Judge

This case is about insurance coverage for injuries from a dog bite. The answer to the coverage question depends on whether a term appearing in the relevant policy in bold text-"insured "-means the same thing or something different when it appears in the policy in plain text-"insured." Plaintiff Auto-Owners Insurance Company says the word unambiguously has the same meaning regardless of whether it appears in bold or plain text and that, as a result, there is no coverage for dog-bite injuries sustained by intervenor defendant J.M. J.M. says the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. Christopher Gorog v. Best Buy Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cumulus Investors, LLC v. Hiscox, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2021
  2. River Place Condominium Association v. Federal Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
  3. Wilson v. PartnerRe Ireland Insurance dacDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API