AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc. v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that insurer’s actions in conducting the insured’s defense, where the insurer, inter alia, potentially exposed the insured to criminal liability, constituted manifest injustice to the insured’s interest and, thus, estoppel was appropriate
• holding that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage under the insured’s policy where it was plainly evident that a ground for non-coverage existed but the insurer chose instead to assume unconditional control over the insured’s defense without securing a reservation of rights
• stating that “the selective use of the terms ‘any person’ and ‘family member’ ... creates mutually exclusive classes”
• agreeing with Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kubik, 142 Ill.App.3d 906, 97 Ill.Dec. 68, 492 N.E.2d 504 (1986)
• agreeing with Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kubik, 142 Ill.App.3d 906, 97 Ill.Dec. 68, 492 N.E.2d 504 (1986)
• discussing the validity of a reservation of rights by the insurer in connection with tendering a defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).