Haberman v. Hartford Insurance Group

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that denial of summary judgment based on factual disputes is not properly reviewable on an appeal from a final judgment after trial
• explaining that “[i]n diversity cases, the substantive law of the forum state governs the analysis of the underlying claims”
• applying Oklahoma law to extend coverage because the UIM endorsement “did not expressly limit [Haberman’s] [UIM] coverage to only ‘covered’ vehicles”
• stating that under Oklahoma insurance law, when there is conflicting evidence as to good faith and fair dealing, “what is reasonable is always a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact by a consideration of the circumstances in each case”
• interpreting an insurance policy that uses a “Covered Auto Symbol” to indicate coverage
• \[T]he denial of summary judgment based on factual disputes is not properly reviewable on appeal from a trial judgment issued after trial.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).