Halberstadt v. Halberstadt

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to decide whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify because the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit could change the theory of lia- bility and obtain judgment on a claim covered by the policy
• the insured necessarily “expected” the flood damages suffered by the plaintiffs under the plaintiffs’ allegation that the insured fraudulently sold them property which it knew would flood
• the insured necessarily \expected\ the flood damages suffered by the plaintiffs under the plaintiffs' allegation that the insured fraudulently sold them property which it knew would flood
• “[I]t cannot be determined at the [duty-to-defend] stage” whether the insurance company “is ob- ligated to pay any judgment.”
• “[T]here is nothing in the record before us, looking beyond the allegations of the complaint, to indicate that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against [the insured] are asserting” covered claims.
• no duty to defend intentional-fraud claim; while insured “denies knowing that the lots . . . would flood, . . . that is a matter to be determined in the [underlying] lawsuit,” and insured’s “denial in no way changes the nature of the [plaintiffs’] claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).