Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when the “undisputed evidence establishes that no damage had been discovered before a given date (i.e., no manifestation occurred), then insurers whose policies expired prior to that date could not be liable for the loss”
• adopting the trend of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations where insurer has received timely notice of the loss
• finding an insurer was only responsible for damage that “manifested” before the policy expired
• finding an insurer was only responsible for damage that “manifested” before the policy expired
• “[T]he insurer is entitled to receive prompt notice of a 12 claim . . . .”
• “When a clause in an insurance policy is authorized by statute, it is deemed consistent with public policy as established by the Legislature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).