Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Citation
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Parent Document
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-07-27
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Deguise (2005)
Full Text
885 charsThis court denied tenants’ initial Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for several reasons, the primary being that tenants’ argument was premised on a lease that had not been submitted. See Joerg, at ¶ 11 (centering the determination of coinsured status on what the parties intended and expected from their lease). Both parties have rectified that problem by including a copy of tenants’ lease in their respective motions for summary judgment. The question now becomes whether paragraph 28 of tenants’ lease, as they argue, makes them coinsured beneficiaries under Northgate’s fire insurance policy. Because neither party disputes the content of the lease and because there is no ambiguity in its language, summary judgment is proper on this issue. Rogers v. Wells, 174 Vt. 492, 494 (2002) (“Absent ambiguity, contract interpretation is a matter of law.”). The paragraph in question reads: