Peter v. Schumacher Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that insurance agents do not have a common law duty to advise customers about their insurance coverage, absent a special relationship
• noting that despite speculation involved in determining what an insured would have done had he been given proper information, jury should be allowed to consider the issue
• stating whether client made inquiry that required insurance agent to advise client on available levels of coverage for UM/UIM coverage is a fact question to be resolved at trial
• discussing private right of action to enforce rights under AS 21.89.020(c) and (d)
• laying out test for determining whether statute provides for private cause of action}. 45 . See Gamble v. Northstore P'ship, 907 P.2d 477, 482 (Alaska 1995). 46 . Id. 47 . Id. at 483. ''The standards governing the pleading of affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c
• \[PJrivate actions to enforce the requirements of [AS 21.89.020] have been maintained and approved by this court\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).