People v. Nasta

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where coverage was for “a one-family dwelling used as a private residence” by the insured, the policy was “only intended to afford coverage for places where the insured live”
• “[T]he issue of a timely disclaimer is irrelevant if, in the first instance, the policy never provided coverage for the particular claim at issue.”
• “[T]he Perdues did not reside at the premises at the time the policy was issued or at the time the . . . incident took place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).