Brennan v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding insurance company “was not obligated to pay the additional PIP benefits until the policy was reformed”
• noting that the “directive of [section] 10 — 4—710 is to the insurer, not the insured: all that is required is that the insurer offer these extended benefits”
• noting that a “Policy Notice” attached to the policy was not part of the policy and would not be considered in order to demonstrate that no aggregate limit on APIP benefits existed
• holding the remedy of reformation is an equitable one within the district court’s discretion so that even when the insurance policy is reformed, the contractual obligation to pay may be prospective from the date of the judicial reformation
• nothing in No-Fault Act prohibits the named insured from limiting its purchase of additional PIP coverage by scope, application, or amount
• affirming dismissal of breach of contract claim when policy was subsequently reformed by trial court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).