Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a factfinder could find that Cargill’s delay in providing notice was practicable because of a $1 million deductible on its insurance policy
• evaluating only the home states of the parties to the insurance contract
• reversing the district court’s finding that a letter did not constitute a claim where, read in context, the communications were undeniably a demand for action, even though the communication was “conciliatory” and “did not take the form of demands”
• “[I]t would not be wholly unreasonable for a fact-finder to determine that ... it was practical for Cargill to wait until the $1 million deductible was exceeded [to provide notice].”
• defining “practicable” to mean per formable, feasible, or possible
• written notice of claim was a condition precedent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).