2000) (noting reasonable expectations doctrine “is a narrow doctrine that is primarily employed when the insurance coverage provided eviscerates terms explicitly agreed to or is manifestly inconsistent with the purpose of the transaction for which the insurance was purchased”). In the summary judgment proceedings, Goodwin filed his own affidavit that set forth his expectations of coverage. He did not, however, reveal any statements or other circumstances attributable to Nationwide, other than the policy provisions discussed above, that fostered his coverage expectations. See Am. Family Mut Ins. Co. v. Corrigan, 697 N.W.2d 108, 118 (Iowa 2005) (rejecting reasonable expectations a ntitled to coverage under this theory. See Shelter Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lincoln, 590 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa 1999) (<HOLDING>). VI. Summary and Disposition. There is no
holding that under pennsylvania law the reasonable expectations of an insured may overcome unambiguous policy language only when the insured is a noncommercial entity holding when insured has failed to show circumstances attributable to the insurer that fostered coverage expectations or that an ordinary layperson would misunderstand the exclusion summary judgment against the insured is appropriate holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer