Leonard Gamble v. Sputniks, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that concurrent causation doctrine did not apply where allegations of insured’s negligence were not nonexcluded concurrent causes
• “An insurer’s duty to defend is determined solely by an examination of the allegations of the underlying complaint.” (emphasis added)
• “The doctrine of collateral estoppel . . . is generally held to be applicable only when . . . the determination of such issue in the former action was necessary to the judgment.” (quoting Home Ins. Co. v. Leinart, 698 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tenn. 1985)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).