Oglesby v. Penn Mutual Life 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 “Delaware courts ... consistently construfe] ambiguities in favor of the insured as a matter of law.”
• noting that \Delaware courts . . . consistently constru[e] ambiguities in favor of the insured as a matter of law.\
• noting in the context of a disability policy dispute that an underwriter’s statement claiming he would have excluded a risk from the policy can generally “be rightly dismissed as merely post hoc”
• cataloging cases and secondary sources to conclude that the “general weight of authority on this issue” is that “disability insurance claimant need not submit proof of loss until the termination of the period in which the insured was disabled”
• insurance company provided “written confirmation” that insured’s “regular occupation was in the radiology sub-specialty of interventional vascular radiology”
• “Because there is an abundance of genuine issues of material fact relating to plaintiffs regular occupation under the disability insurance policy, this issue cannot be disposed of at summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).