McDivitt v. Pymatuning Mutual Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• criticizing Carter for “missing the mark” by relying on the special nature of the entirety relationship; emphasized instead the personal nature of the insurance contract
• finding based on the facts of the case that there was an agreement otherwise
• noting “[p]roperty ownership . . . is of minimal importance in determining entitlement to the proceeds of insurance, since the nature and extent of the various rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms of the insurance contract”
• “Property ownership ... is of minimal importance in determining entitlement to the proceeds of insurance, since the nature and extent of various rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms of the insurance contract”
• a husband who owned property as a tenant by the entireties with his wife had no interest in proceeds from insurance covering a property since the contract was a personal contract between the wife and the insurer and did not pertain directly to the insured property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).