Markel American Insurance v. Dolan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “an insurer who misrepresents facts, denies coverage after refusing to conduct an adequate investigation, and bases its decision upon speculation or incomplete information could be considered to have acted without reasonable cause.”
• determining that assertions that insurer “‘misrepresented . . . relevant facts’ or ‘failed to conduct a full, fair and 6 prompt investigation’ are not, at all, legal conclusions; they are facts, albeit general one, which the Court must accept as true”
• same where plaintiff alleged that defendant insurer knowingly misrepresented relevant facts related to coverages and denied coverage based on speculation
• “If [the insurance company] proves its [declaratory judgment] claims, it obviously has not violated Section 155 because it owed [the insured] no coverage whatsoever.”
• allegations that insurer misrepresented facts, refused to conduct an adequate investigation, and based its decision upon incomplete information were sufficient to plausibly allege unreasonable and vexatious conduct
• allegations that insurer misrepresented facts, refused to conduct an adequate investigation, and based its decision upon incomplete information were sufficient to plausibly allege unreasonable and vexatious conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).