Hampton Foods, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Hampton Foods, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insured grocery “suffered direct, concrete and immediate loss due to extraneous physical damage to the building”
• holding that insured grocery store “suffered direct, concrete and immediate loss due to extraneous physical damage to the building” where building had to be evacuated because of imminent danger of collapse
• holding that the key inquiry is not whether the insurer technically complied with the policy’s provisions, but whether they took some action or failed to act in a way that caused a delay in the insured’s repairs
• explaining that “the theoretical period of restoration does not contemplate delay caused by refusal to pay a disputed claim and instead contemplates the theoretical period of time required for reentry into business had the insurance company timely paid”
• allowing a claim for business income coverage where the risk of collapse required abandonment of grocery 12 store
• noting the insured purchased both all-risk property and business interruption coverage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).