Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Watkins v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.

656 So. 2d 337 (Ala. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Watkins v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.

20 Citing cases

  1. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ivan's Painting LLC

    7:21-cv-00945-RDP (N.D. Ala. Dec. 19, 2022)

    “Insurance contracts are to be enforced as they are written, as long as there is no ambiguity in the provisions involved.” Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Naramore, 950 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Watkins v U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337, 339 (Ala. 1994)) (internal citations omitted). “To the extent the language of an insurance policy provision is ambiguous, all ambiguities must be resolved against the insurance company.”

  2. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 21-0229-CG-M (S.D. Ala. Jul. 6, 2022)

    A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala. 1994).

  3. Gen. Star Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Higginbotham

    877 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Ala. 2012)

    While a truly ambiguous provision in an insurance policy should be construed against the insurer, “[a] policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 26 So.3d 1167, 1169 (Ala.2009) (citing Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala.1994)). “When analyzing an insurance policy, a court gives words used in the policy their common, everyday meaning and interprets them as a reasonable person in the insured's position would have understood them.”

  4. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Warren

    373 So. 3d 1080 (Ala. 2022)

    A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So. 2d 337 (Ala. 1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended.

  5. Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Watts

    323 So. 3d 39 (Ala. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    Canal Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 718 So. 2d 8 (Ala. 1998). A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So. 2d 337 (Ala. 1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended.

  6. Crook v. Allstate Indem. Co.

    314 So. 3d 1188 (Ala. 2020)   Cited 19 times
    In Crook, the plaintiff alleged that “he relied upon the defendants to provide adequate coverage for the property and that the defendants ‘knew or should have known that [Coverage B]... would be insufficient to cover damages to [the] deck and [the] boat [dock].

    Canal Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 718 So. 2d 8 (Ala. 1998). A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So. 2d 337 (Ala. 1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended.

  7. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Advanced Specialty Pharmacy LLC

    230 So. 3d 380 (Ala. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala. 1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended. Upton v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 548 (Ala. 1985).

  8. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Britt

    203 So. 3d 804 (Ala. 2016)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "all-risk policies generally include coverage for any losses not excluded or resulting from the insured's fraudulent conduct" and thus implying that it is easy to prove coverage under an all-risks policy

    A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala.1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended. Upton v. Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 548 (Ala.1985).

  9. Baldwin Mut. Ins. Co. v. Adair

    181 So. 3d 1033 (Ala. 2014)   Cited 20 times
    Holding insured must comply with post-loss obligations when making claim and meeting those obligations is precondition to insurer's duty to make loss payment

    A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala.1994)....’“B.D.B. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 814 So.2d 877, 879–80 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

  10. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp.

    117 So. 3d 695 (Ala. 2012)   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Canal Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 718 So.2d 8 (Ala.1998). A policy is not made ambiguous by the fact that the parties interpret the policy differently or disagree as to the meaning of a written provision in a contract. Watkins v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 656 So.2d 337 (Ala.1994). A court must not rewrite a policy so as to include or exclude coverage that was not intended.