Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that summary judgment was in error where the insured had a reasonable belief of non-coverage and non-liability for the incident
• explaining that “failure to give timely notice … may be excused” instead of stating that late notice may be timely
• delay in notifying an insurer of an “occurrence” may be excused “by proof that the insured either lacked knowledge of the occurrence or had a reasonable belief of nonliability.”
• “The test for determining whether the notice provision has been triggered is whether the circumstances known to the insured at that time would have suggested to a reasonable person the possibility of a claim.”
• “[G]iven that the Union’s officers are nonlawyers with little expertise in tort liability, we conclude that it was reasonable for them to believe that they could not be held liable for an intentional, and criminal, assault committed by a union member.”
• “Although the broker was apparently mistaken in his interpretation of the scope of the insurance contract, it was reasonable for the [insured] to rely on the statement and to believe that the policy did not cover any aspect of the rock-throwing incident.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).