In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their
• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.
Since the claim was not filed, the Trust will also incur post-acquisition expenses, including costs to demolish the property, which would have been paid by the insurer (the current bid for demo is $25,000);
Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Cross-Defendants had no intention of completing the reconstruction improvements within the amount approved by the Bolanos’ insurance company. With the Home Improvement Contract, Cross-Defendants submitted an estimate for $275,718.08. When the Bolanos’ insurance company only approved repairs for 251,569.81, Pedro Luis Hidalgo made representations that all insurance companies approve less but that Cross-Defendants know how to obtain the difference between the requested and approved amounts.
On or about June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s automobile, a 2006 Lincoln LS, was stolen from her and burned to the point where the property damage to the automobile was determined to be a total loss. At the time, the Plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance police with the
State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.
Mr. Alvarado approached my client suddenly after running a red light. The negligence of your insured caused Ms. Tellez to collide into Mr. Alvardo’s left side of the door after Mr. Alvarado ran a red light. Ms. Tellez bags deployed, causing great damage to her car. See Photographs, attached as Exhibit A. The two-car collision occurred suddenly and without warning.
Fire is one of the risks of a construction project against which Allianz’s policy insures; yet it is only one, and given the wide range coverage of the policy, it seemed odd to the presiding judges to classify it as a fire risk insurance policy. A fire insurance policy is subjected to 19 separate requirements, and until 1990, Michigan legislature, rather than trying to define “fire insurance policy”, provided that a “standard fire policy” (with all 19 mandatory minimum provisions) would not be required for a variety of types of insurance. The structure of this Michigan statute implied any form of insurance that was not exempt was a “standard fire policy”, including a builders risk policy, and so the 19 mandatory provisions would have to have been included when indemnity was sought after. However, this legislature was repealed in 1990, well before Allianz issued the
We write today to present you with a demand for settlement and the supporting documentation for our demand. As you know, we represent Ms. Betty Brath in the matter of a grievous injury she suffered due to the negligence of your insured. Ms. Brath has reached maximum medical improvement but unfortunately will never fully recover. We are able to calculate her past and future medical expenses at approximately $34,177.73. Her general damages at trial will be approximately $170,000.00. We therefore demand payment in the amount of $204,177.73. We elaborate on this demand below.
Mr. Frye attempted to collect on his automobile insurer Crimson Permanent Assurance Company. Crimson denied coverage. Mr. Frye brought suit against Crimson. Crimson moved for summary judgment on the basis that Carmon Frye was not occupying the vehicle and the damage to the vehicle was intentionally caused by Cameron Frye within the meaning of the policy. The policy defines occupying as “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off.” Under the policy “property damage to ‘your covered auto’ or any ‘non-owned auto’ that is intended or expected by you or any ‘family member.’” is excluded from
This case shows that the insurance company’s duty to deal in good faith does not extend to the plaintiffs who were not insured under the contract. Because there was no relationship with the insurer, the plaintiffs could not bring a direct action for bad faith against the insurance company to recover an amount in excess of the policy limits.
"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.
“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own
Answer: Property and casualty insurance protects property (houses, cars, boats, and so on) against losses due to accidents, fire, disasters, and other calamities. Property and casualty policies tend to be short-term contracts and, that’s why the subject to frequent renewal is, and one more characteristic feature is the absence of savings component. Property and casualty premiums are based on the probability of sustaining the loss. To estimate the key determinant of the price of an insurance policy, i.e. risks, insurance companies take third-party proceedings that develop models of catastrophe loss probabilities. Based on the numbers form Exhibit 5 of the case we see that
The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.