Nichols v. Dodson Lead & Zinc Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a [ROR] letter that merely provides the insured with a copy of the policy, coupled with a general statement that the insurer reserves all of its right is [not] sufficient”
• holding that a reservation of rights letter that “merely provides the insured with a copy of the policy, coupled with a general statement that the insurer reserves all of its rights” is insufficient to properly reserve the right to contest coverage
• distinguishing 9 between a reservation that “state[s] the specific grounds for contesting coverage” and a 10 “non-specific—‘we will let you know later’—purported reservation of rights.”
• explaining the Special Referee found \it would be improper and purely speculative to attempt to allocate the [] general verdict[] between covered and non-covered damages\
• explaining the Special Referee found \it would be improper and purely speculative to attempt to allocate the [] general verdict[] between covered and non-covered damages\
• explaining the goal of actual damages is to restore the injured party to the same position he or she was in before the wrongful injury occurred, while punitive damages relate not to the plaintiff, but rather to the defendant's reckless, willful, wanton, or malicious conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).