Phoenix Ins. Co. v. McCormick

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that statutory language providing for notice by certified mail, registered mail or hand delivery eliminates problems in proving timely service, but when actual notice is conceded, strict compliance is not required
• agreeing that when defendants receive “actual notice within the meaning of the statute although not in strict compliance with it, it has been complied with.”
• holding insurer’s service of written notice of coverage defense substantially complied with statutory notice requirement despite failure to serve notice by registered or certified mail
• reversing grant of summary judgment against insurer because insureds and their attorney had “actual written notice of the denial of coverage by [the insurer] and the reasons for that denial within thirty days of the insurer’s receipt of the claim”
• actual notice was timely and finding strict compliance not required where the insured admits actual notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).