Armstrong v. United States Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[a]s an initial matter, the language of the statute supports the interpretation that ‘the insured’ in the MCS-90 refers to the motor carrier named in the policy of insurance”
• stating “only a party to the insurance contract could affect cancellation and it would be nonsensical to suggest that [defendants] have any right to cancel the policy”
• “It also appears to this Court ... that the Ninth and Tenth Circuits ... may have reached the wrong conclusion when the MCS-90 is viewed in the context of the statutory and regulatory provisions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).