Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v. McDonald

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not barred by the statute of limitations because the claim “was in the nature of a continuing tort”
• holding that 'an action such as this, arising from continuing dealings between the parties, will not be barred until two years after the last tortious act by the defendant' (emphasis added)
• detailing the plaintiffs severe pain and emotional distress which had been made apparent to the defendant over a lengthy period of time
• finding outrageous conduct where insurer withheld payment for authorized medical services for over five years in order to coerce a minimal settlement
• affirming a jury verdict against an insurer on an outrage claim where the evidence showed pervasive delays, insufficient explanations for the delays, and attempts to persuade the insured to accept an unfavorable settlement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).