Pickering v. American Employers Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an action against one’s own carrier for UIM benefits “is fundamentally one in contract” and thus subject to the statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims found in G.L.1956 § 9-1-13
• noting that even a provision that notice must be given “immediately” or “as soon as possible” means that notice must be given within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case
• stating consent-to-settlement clause “carries with it an implied promise by the insurer that its consent will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld”
• “a technical breach of the notice provisions in a policy should [not] bar an insured from recovering the benefits for which he has paid”
• \a technical breach of the notice provisions in a policy should [not] bar an insured from recovering the benefits for which he has paid\
• since insurance policies often are adhesion contracts, the insurer is not “permitted to declare a forfeiture of the bargained-for protection” without showing prejudice from notice delay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).