Stuart v. Espinosa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the waiver barred the insurance company’s claim for “the return of any proceeds paid to the [insured] under the subject policy”
• characterizing subrogation waivers as prearranged risk- allocation devices that do not “exempt a party from liability” but rather “require one of the parties to the contract to provide insurance” (citation omitted)
• contract requiring the purchase of insurance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).