Picou v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections

How courts have described this case

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

• agreeing with certain “criticisms of the Sutton rationale, as a matter of the general principles of insurance and contract law,” but concluding that “the Sutton result is sound as a matter of subrogation law and policy”
• agreeing with certain “criticisms of the Sutton rationale, as a matter of the general principles of insurance and contract law,” but concluding that “the Sutton result is sound as a matter of subrogation law and policy”
• “neither landlords nor tenants ordinarily expect that the landlord’s insurer would be proceeding against the tenant, unless expert counseling to that effect had forewarned them”
• “a tenant is not a coinsured on his landlord’s fire insurance policy simply because he has an insurable interest in the premises and pays rent”
• “[t]his duplication of insurance would, in our view, constitute economic waste and, in a multiunit building, the waste would be compounded by the number of tenants”
• “[i]t surely is not in the public interest to require all the tenants to insure the building which they share, thus causing the building to be fully insured by each tenancy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).