Cuppy v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to apply equitable estoppel when the insurance agent merely stated “they would take care of everything”
• stating “[t]he rule is (with the possible exception in case of insolvency or bankruptcy, neither of which is pleaded or proved here) that an injured person cannot sue the insurance company in his original action against the insured[]”
• stating “[t]he rule is (with the possible exception in case of insolvency or bankruptcy, neither of which is pleaded or proved here) that an injured person cannot sue the insurance company in his original action against the insured[]”
• stating “[t]he rule is (with the possible exception in case of insolvency or bankruptcy, neither of which is pleaded or proved here) that an injured person cannot sue the insurance company in his original action against the insured”
• no estoppel where 8 months elapsed between the last contact with the adjuster and the running of the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).