Mills v. Foremost Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Millses’ policy defined actual cash value as the “cost to repair or replace property . . . less allowance for . . . depreciation” (inter- nal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that plaintiffs ‘would not be entitled to receive payment for any type of cost charged by a general contractor without showing that they would be reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs in issue.’
• finding insured had standing to sue for damages where insured maintained he was paid less on his claim than what was owed under the policy
• “pleadings alone are often not sufficient to establish whether class certification is proper, and the district court will need to go beyond the pleadings and permit some discovery”
• rejecting the district court's conclusion that preconditions in the policy required the Millses to complete repair or replacement of their damaged property and to submit such a replacement cost claim to be entitled to the Withheld Payments
• rejecting the district court's conclusion that preconditions in the policy required the Millses to complete repair or replacement of their damaged property and to submit such a replacement cost claim to be entitled to the Withheld Payments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).