Sonrob Hosts, LLC v. Lafayette Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Me. State Props., LLC v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co.

    No. 2:15-cv-140-JHR (D. Me. Jul. 8, 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Interpreting whether exclusion endorsement superseded an exclusion invades court's province to interpret policy language of the policy

    See id. at 8-9. Maine State cites Sonrob Hosts, LLC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-03094, 2012 WL 5336966, at 7-8 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 26, 2012), for the proposition that the language at issue is ambiguous, setting a subjective standard as to what an insured's "best" may entail. See S/J Opposition at 4-5.

  2. Wells v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.

    2021 Ill. App. 5th 190460 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 14 times

    Therefore, the circuit court concluded that, for insurance coverage to apply, the plaintiffs must have made a "reasonable effort" to maintain heat in the building. In concluding that a reasonableness standard applies, the parties and the circuit court relied on the reasoning set out in Sonrob Hosts, LLC v. Lafayette Insurance Co., No. 3:11-CV-03094, 2012 WL 5336966 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 26, 2012). ΒΆ 33 In Sonrob, the court was called upon to interpret a commercial insurance policy that contained an exclusion that was identical to the exclusion at issue in this case. Specifically, the exclusion in Sonrob provided that the insurer would not pay for loss or damage resulting from freezing water pipes unless " '[y]ou do your best to maintain heat in the building or structure.' "