Assad’s complaint is a nullity and allowing him to represent the estate in this matter constituted plain error.
The plain language of the policy excluded coverage for Dawson’s defense or for any financial liability in the state court action.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not polling the jury. It reversed the appeals court and affirmed Jacobson’s convictions.
The Supreme Court of Colorado answered that question in Mac McShane and Cynthia Calvin v. Stirling Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. (2017 CO 38).
The Nebraska Court of Appeals decides whether a broken hip and loss of consortium is the fault of the grocery store and its watermelons in Robertson v. U Save Foods, Inc.
The Court concluded that the precipitation that fell on Martinez’s home and then flowed into the window wells was all surface water, which the insurance policy clearly and plainly excluded from coverage.
The law says that after the claimant settles with a joint tortfeasor, the claims against others “shall be reduced by the amount of the released person’s share of the obligation as determined by the trier of fact.”
The threshold question was whether contractual privity was necessary for a home buyer to assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of suitability against the developer.
The Court of Appeals looked at whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding so many medical bills.
The judgment on Stone’s negligence claim was affirmed, the judgment on her PLA claim was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
The Supreme Court looked at Henn’s claim that the language in the insurance contract was ambiguous, American Family disagreed.
Johnson’s doctors claimed she could not work. LINA’s doctor claimed she could, with accommodations, and LINA denied the claim.
