VRV Development L.P. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that in Wilshire, “we refused to conflate an allegedly defective foundation with the separate property damage that ultimately resulted”
• stating that in Wilshire, “we refused to conflate an allegedly defective foundation with the separate property damage that ultimately resulted”
• stating that in Wilshire, “we refused to conflate an allegedly defective foundation with the separate property damage that ultimately resulted”
• finding that an insurance company had not agreed to accept the risk of a changed insured because the insurer was not notified of the plaintiff’s conversion and “never had the opportunity to evaluate . . . the general partner” of the converted entity
• noting on appeal that the court needed not address the question whether VRV, L.P. acquired VRV, Inc.’s rights to defendant and indemnity by conversion because a covered event was not alleged
• “[A]n insurer’s duty to indemnify typically can be resolved only after the conclusion of the underlying action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).