United States v. Beaudoin

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the insured’s subjective belief that subcontractor employee’s fall could not subject it to liability was not sufficient to avoid policy’s notice requirement and was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances
• “A right of reimbursement is justified under either an unjust enrichment or implied in fact contract theory.”
• \[The insured] had a duty to report the accident so that [the insurer] could promptly investigate the facts surrounding the incident while they were still fresh and to prepare a defense of the action or determine the feasibility of settlement of the claim.\
• “The duty to provide notice to the insurer is triggered when the insured actually knew or should have known of the possibility that it might be held liable for the occurrence in question.” (quoting S.C. Ins. Co. v. Coody, 957 F. Supp. 234, 237 (M.D. Ga. 1997))
• predicting Georgia courts would permit reimbursement
• predicting Georgia courts would permit reimbursement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).