Bihm v. Bihm

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there can be multiple covered claims for each occurrence
• Single occurrence language of insurance policy does not limit multiple claims under guaranty association statute to one aggregated recovery for a covered claim.
• interpreting Connecticut’s equivalent provision to § 1903(a) and holding that a “covered claim” is a right by individual claimants to recover under an insurance policy and rejecting interpretation of “claim” as an “occurrence”
• relying on the claims of the underlying claimants to define the extent of the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association’s liability for a resident insured’s indemnification claim under the Connecticut insurance guaranty statute
• references to a “claimant or insured” in the Connecticut insurance guaranty statute indicated that either a claimant or insured may present a covered claim
• association may not use exhaustion or nonduplication of recovery provisions to avoid its responsibilities for paying claims that should have been covered by insolvent excess insurer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).