Jack Buczek v. Continental Casualty Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a court “should not write for the insured a better policy of insurance than the one purchased”
• rejecting a claim based on equitable estoppel because there was “no evidence of misrepresentation regarding the coverage of [the] insurance policy”
• relying on dictionary definitions of “imminent” to interpret New Jersey common law rule under which “collapse” always includes “imminent collapse” for the pur- poses of insurance policies
• testimony that 90-mile-per- hour winds sometimes hit the New Jersey shore is a “disputed fact is not one that is appropriate for judicial notice”
• “Determination of the proper coverage of an insurance contract is a question of law.”
• judgment as a matter of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).