Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Bartlett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, based on deposition which revealed that defective materials were used and construction was contrary to workmanship standards, that insurer had no duty to defend because damages should have been expected by the insured
• holding, based on deposition which revealed that defective materials were used and construction was contrary to workmanship standards, that insurer had no duty to defend because damages should have been expected by the insured
• when insured knew his actions posed danger, his conduct was reckless and resulting damages “expected” and not covered by liability insurance
• no duty to defend claim against contractor when the damage caused was \highly expectable from his standpoint\
• in general liability policy, either “intentional or reckless” acts viewed outside a covered “occurrence,” defined in the policy as an expected or intended accident
• no duty to defend claim against contractor when the damage caused was “highly expectable from his standpoint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).