Kerr v. Illinois Central Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a]n excess insurer should not be forced to rely on its insured or the primary insurer to protect its interests where timely notice would provide the excess insurer with an opportunity to pursue its own investigation”
• stating that compliance with notice provision is a condition precedent to coverage and, if breached, the insurer will not be liable under the policy
• holding that “[a]n excess insurer should not be forced to rely on its insured or the primary insurer to protect its interests where timely notice would provide the excess insurer with an opportunity to pursue its own investigation”
• stating that compliance with notice provision is a condition precedent to coverage and if breached, the insurer will not be liable under the policy
• stating that “[a]n excess insurer should not be forced to rely on its insured or the primary insurer to protect its interests where timely notice would provide the excess insurer with an opportunity to pursue its own investigation”
• construing notice provision to include implied remedy where excess in‐ surer did not reserve right to participate in defense of claim, lest insurer “be called on simply to write the check”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).