Government Employees Insurance Company v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that an insured would be sufficiently notified where the renewal policy was transmitted with instructions to the insured to read it carefully and it also contained an endorsement regarding the modification which was short, separately attached, and boldly worded
• explaining the defendant had the right to implead the plaintiff’s insurance company as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 where the defendant claimed it was an additional insured under the plaintiff’s policy and the insurance company denied coverage
• “Hence, while it is inequitable to require an insured to search the fine print of each renewal policy, to require that he be aware of a short, separately attached boldly worded modification, seems clearly appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).