Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that insurer could not be expected to pay a loss during investigation of fire at insured’s business
• adopting a California court's statement regarding the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress without any discussion of Iowa precedent
• refusal to pay fire insurance benefits during period of arson investigation to insured suspected of arson by authorities not outrageous
• refusal to pay fire insurance benefits during period of arson investigation to insured suspected of arson by authorities not outrageous
• refusal to pay fire insurance benefits during period of arson investigation to insured suspected of arson by authorities not outrageous
• insurance company’s failure to immediately pay fire loss claim not “outrageous conduct” in action for intentional infliction of emotional distress

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).