Pow v. Beckner

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding the district court’s award of fees without detailed time records because the “district court had ample evidence to draw upon in determining a reasonable fee.”
• no duty to notify insured before suit that insurer is investigating whether coverage exists under policy
• \The district court's action of adopting Biscanin's findings of fact and conclusions of law in toto did not violate K.S.A.2003 Supp. 60-252 and does not warrant our applying a de novo standard of review.\
• “The district court’s action of adopting Biscanin’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in toto did not violate K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-252 and does not warrant our applying a de novo standard of review.”
• “Pursuant to K.S.A. 40-2,118[a], in order to establish fraud on the part of the insured, an insurer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that its insured knowingly and with intent to deceive signed an application the insured knew contained materially false statements.”
• rejecting contention that contingency agreements may not be considered

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).