In Tidyman’s Management Services, Inc. v. Davis, (Tidyman’s) the Montana Supreme Court neglected to address the underlying issue: whether an insurer’s duty to defend is revocable. Although the Court did not directly address revocability, the holding requires an insurer to provide defense after it acknowledges a duty to defend even if the insurer knows of information that undisputedly negates coverage. Therefore, the Court indirectly held the duty to defend is irrevocable. The holding is consistent with legislative intent
Does a private consumer of insurance have a cause of action against an insurer to recover damages ca...
This case presents the Court with the question of whether a settlement agreement is unenforceable be...
In pursuit of a greater understanding of this controversial subject, this article will: (1) explore ...
In Tidyman’s Management Services, Inc. v. Davis, (Tidyman’s) the Montana Supreme Court neglected to ...
This Note explores the consequences of an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend under Missouri case...
This article sets out the law defining the insurer\u27s duty to defend under liability policies in M...
This article examines the specific body of law and standard of care that has developed around the re...
The key to properly conducting a reservation of rights defense is understanding the interrelationshi...
In a previous paper, I suggested that the Missouri Supreme Court had adopted a forfeiture penalty fo...
Plaintiff\u27s truck was hit by a tree felled by a logging contractor\u27s employee. The truck was i...
Does an insurer assume a duty to defend its insureds by voluntarily defending its insureds? If so, d...
The Court held that when an insurer breaches its contractual duty to defend the insured, the insurer...
Seeking to clarify past decisions and protect insureds’ rights to insurance coverage, the Montana Su...
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that for a third party complaint to trigger a “business pursui...
This Note has five purposes. First, this Note reviews the facts of Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty...
Does a private consumer of insurance have a cause of action against an insurer to recover damages ca...
This case presents the Court with the question of whether a settlement agreement is unenforceable be...
In pursuit of a greater understanding of this controversial subject, this article will: (1) explore ...
In Tidyman’s Management Services, Inc. v. Davis, (Tidyman’s) the Montana Supreme Court neglected to ...
This Note explores the consequences of an insurer’s breach of the duty to defend under Missouri case...
This article sets out the law defining the insurer\u27s duty to defend under liability policies in M...
This article examines the specific body of law and standard of care that has developed around the re...
The key to properly conducting a reservation of rights defense is understanding the interrelationshi...
In a previous paper, I suggested that the Missouri Supreme Court had adopted a forfeiture penalty fo...
Plaintiff\u27s truck was hit by a tree felled by a logging contractor\u27s employee. The truck was i...
Does an insurer assume a duty to defend its insureds by voluntarily defending its insureds? If so, d...
The Court held that when an insurer breaches its contractual duty to defend the insured, the insurer...
Seeking to clarify past decisions and protect insureds’ rights to insurance coverage, the Montana Su...
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that for a third party complaint to trigger a “business pursui...
This Note has five purposes. First, this Note reviews the facts of Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty...
Does a private consumer of insurance have a cause of action against an insurer to recover damages ca...
This case presents the Court with the question of whether a settlement agreement is unenforceable be...
In pursuit of a greater understanding of this controversial subject, this article will: (1) explore ...