Vu v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant would be estopped from raising statute-of-limitations defense if plaintiff proved that he “reasonably relied” on defendant’s misrepresentation
• “The insurer-insured relationship, however, is not a true ‘fiduciary relationship’ in the same sense as the relationship between trustee and beneficiary, or attorney and client.”
• “Under this special relationship, an insurer’s obligations are greater than those of a party to an ordinary commercial contract.”
• “[A] denial of coverage, even if phrased 10 as a ‘representation’ that the policy does not cover the insured’s claim, or words to 11 that effect, offers no grounds for estopping the insurer from raising a statute of 12 limitations defense.”
• equitable estoppel under California law requires reliance be reasonable
• Concise statement, unnumbered Paragraphs Three through five

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).