Even the smallest words can carry controlling meaning. At least, that's what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. Politsopoulos
Two Small Words, One Great Divide
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently joined the majority of other jurisdictions that in holding that a policy providing an exclusion for an employee of "the insured" meant an employee of the insured seeking coverage under the policy, but not of any of the other insureds under the policy, or even of the Named Insured.
By
Joseph G. Grasso and Robyn E. GallagherThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
