LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. v. Sanderman

How courts have described this case

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

• fact that insurance company had policy of not issuing policies at limit claimed by insured did not preclude finding that their representative agreed to coverage at that limit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Burns v. CONSOL. AM. INS. CO.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1978-06-27· cited 35×
• Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Wade
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-01-19· cited 26×
• Kramer v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-06-29· cited 14×
• South Carolina Insurance Company v. Wolf
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1976-05-12· cited 7×
• Babcock v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-01-20· cited 6×
• Emmco Ins. Co. v. Marshall Flying Service, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1976-01-14· cited 6×
• State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hughes Pharmacy, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-07-30· cited 1×
• City of Miami v. Great Southwest Fire Insurance Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1979-11-06

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Blumberg v. American Fire & Casualty Co.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1951-03-09· cited 29×
• Joseph Uram Jewelers, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1972-12-12· cited 10×