Austin v. Fulton Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the insurance agent expressly undertook to obtain insurance and failed to do so, the court characterized this as a negligent misrepresentation case and not as a contract case
• “A tort is ordinarily not complete until there has been an invasion of a legally protected interest of the plaintiff’
• until there was a loss for which the plaintiff was not protected, no legally protected interest had been invaded
• \[A]ppellant ... is barred by the twelve-month period of limitation from asserting his claim\; finding \no facts which would create an estoppel as to the twelve-month limitation provision\
• two year period applicable to action for \breach of warranty to obtain particular insurance\
• action on insurance agent’s express promise to provide insurance covering loss by earthquake, which he negligently breached, sounded in tort because it was essentially an action for negligent misrepresentation of a state of facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).