Peavey Co. v. M/V ANPA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insurer is liable for pre-notice expenses because it did not show actual prejudice by delay and relied on pre-notice investigation without conducting one of its own
• holding that the notice prejudice rule in Louisiana applies only where timely notice is not an express condition precedent
• holding insurer was not prejudiced by untimely notice where it investigated the claim upon receiving notice and without raising issue that it could not properly investigate claim because of delay
• stating that “[t]he rule in Louisiana is that where the requirement of timely notice is not an express condition precedent, the insurer must demonstrate that it was sufficiently prejudiced by the insured's late notice”
• \This Circuit has overwhelmingly upheld the fundamental principle of insurance law which states that an insurer may not sue its own insured to recover under the insurance policy.\
• “While Section IV(2) of the policy does require that Degesch ‘promptly’ notify its insurer, nowhere in the relevant section is there language of it being an express condition precedent to hability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).