Legal Opinion · Dissent
Hankins v. Maryland Casualty Co./Zurich American Insurance Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Decided October 4, 2012No. 2011-CA-01093-SCTPublished
1DissentWaller, Chief Justice
¶ 35. Because I would hold that the “earth-movement” exclusion in the Maryland Casualty CGL Policy is ambiguous, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 36. This Court has held that “Ambiguities exist when a policy can be logically interpreted in two or more ways, where one logical interpretation provides for coverage.” Architex Ass’n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 27 So.3d 1148, 1157 (Miss.2010) (quoting U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Martin, 998 So.2d 956, 963 (Miss.2008)). In order to benefit from an exclusionary clause in an insurance contract, the insurer has the burden to show that the exclusion applies and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Henning Nelson Construction Co. v. Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Murray v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. GarrigaMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
- United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. of Mississippi v. MartinMississippi Supreme Court · 2008
- Architex Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.