Woodward v. Farm Family Casualty Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that one-year limitations periods for insurance contracts have been found to be reasonable
• noting Rhode Island antitrust statute limited right to bring damages action on behalf of indirect purchasers to Attorney General as parens patriae
• affirming summary judgment based on a one-year contractual suit limitations clause because “[t]here is no doubt but that a one-year period of limitation[s] of suit contained in an insurance policy is reasonable and binding upon the insured”
• noting an insurance contract is unambiguous “when a court can determine the meaning . . . without any other guide than a knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of language in general, its meaning depends”
• affirming the language of an insurance policy was unambiguous and conspicuous because “[t]he use of the bolded title ‘Suit Against Us’ and the specific terms ‘suit’ and ‘action’ . . . are indicative of filing a lawsuit rather than of filing a claim”
• “[T]his Court has consistently held that only a casualty insurer is required to notify an insured or a third-party claimant of the applicable state statute of limitations pursuant to section 3914.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).