Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's Club

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because insured’s intent to harm remained a material factual issue, summary judgment was inappropriate, notwithstanding the fact that insured shot and killed a stranger in an aleo- holic blackout and pleaded guilty to third-degree murder
• holding that, because insured's intent to harm remained a material factual issue, summary judgment was inappropriate, notwithstanding the fact that insured shot and killed a stranger in an alcoholic blackout and pleaded guilty to third-degree murder
• holding that, because insured’s intent to harm remained a material factual issue, summary judgment was inappropriate, notwithstanding the act that insured shot and killed a stranger in an alcoholic blackout and pleaded guilty to third-degree murder
• holding that, because insured’s intent to harm remained a material factual issue, summary judgment was inappropriate, notwithstanding the act that insured shot and killed a stranger in an alcoholic blackout and pleaded guilty to third-degree murder
• noting that because of a unilateral plea bargain, the insured’s “intent was never fully, fairly and definitively litigated”
• discussing the availability of an action for declaratory judgment as a means by which an insurance company can establish whether it has a duty to provide a defense in a given case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).