Time Insurance Co. v. Vick

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a similarly worded no- tice “comports with the requirements of section 234(1)” de- spite the apparent absence of the phrase “the company or its agents”
• finding no prejudicial reliance by insured where insured was aware that insured’s policy had lapsed and failed to disclose material medical information on the application for reinstatement
• estoppel necessarily requires some prejudicial reliance of the insured upon some act, conduct or nonaction of the insurer
• estoppel necessarily requires some prejudicial reliance of the insured upon some act, conduct or nonaction of the insurer
• “Section 234(1), there- fore, requires that notice be given before the premium be- comes due, not when a premium has not been paid.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).