Garvis v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding insurer not required to defend where insured did not indicate that possible damages had physical manifestations warranting coverage
• holding insurer not required to participate in discovery proceedings where complaint and extrinsic evidence failed to indicate potential coverage
• concluding complaint that did not allege bodily injury or mental anguish did not create duty- to defend
• holding insurer was not required to participate in discovery because complaint’s facts did not notify insurer of covered claim
• concluding insurer not required to assume there were physical manifestations when none were alleged
• finding insurance coverage under the personal injury provision for “wrongful entry” but noting a distinction between trespass, “any unlawful interference with one’s person, property or rights” and wrongful entry, defined as “the invasion of an interest in real property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).