Bertelsen v. Allstate Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the real inquiry is whether “the issue was fairly debatable” (citations omitted)
• emphasizing that the real inquiry is whether \the issue was fairly debatable\ (citations omitted)
• “Allstate’s obligation was clear from the statutory language alone, and an interpretive decision from this Court was not necessary for Allstate to have determined its duty under its policy.”
• “Allstate’s obligation was clear from the statutory language alone, and an interpretive decision from this Court was not necessary for Allstate to have determined its duty under its policy.”
• “[T]he language of SDCL 62-1-1.3 is plain, unambiguous, and not susceptible to debate.... Allstate’s obligation was clear from the statutory language alone, and an interpretive decision from this Court was not necessary for Allstate to have determined its duty under its policy.”
• “[T]he language of SDCL 62-1-1.3 is plain, unambiguous, and not susceptible to debate. . . . Allstate’s obligation was clear from the statutory language alone, and an interpretive decision from this Court was not necessary for Allstate to have determined its duty under its policy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).