Madera Irr. Dist. v. Miller & Lux, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that \[t]he district court never determined whether Williams provided proof of disability that was adequate to put UNUM on notice of a claim\
• indicating that if the Compulsory Standard Proof of Loss Provision was read into the insurance policy \a new cause of action would accrue after each such period\
• indicating that, if “the terms of the California Insurance Code section 10350.7 must be read into the UNUM policy,” then “the rolling accrual rule established in Nikaido would apply”
• stating that, on remand, the district court should determine whether insurance policy is in compliance with non-preempted insurance law; “[i]f not, the terms of [the insurance code section] must be read into the UNUM policy”
• instructing the district court how to interpret “period for which the insurer is liable” contained in the Compulsory Proof of Loss Provision to allow “the rolling accrual rule established in Nikai-do ”
• instructing the district court how to interpret \period for which the insurer is liable\ contained in the Compulsory Proof of Loss Provision to allow \the rolling accrual rule established in Nikaido \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).