US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Cimino

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that insured seeking PIP benefits was entitled to have attorney or videographer present at examination absent valid reason for exclusion
• noting, among other things, that \[t]he concerns of physicians for conducting examinations without the distraction of third persons cannot outweigh the [examinee's] rights\
• “By using the term ‘unreasonably refuses to submit’ in both the conditions section of the policy and subsection 627.736(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).