Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Summerhaze Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporationgreen2 sentences2023See Summerhaze, 2014 UT 28, ¶ 37 (“[W]ithout a tender of defense, an insurer may challenge its liability for the judgment, contest the amount of damages, or set forth any other available defense that the insured neglected to make.”). 2023This, in our view, insufficiently counters the mandates our Supreme Court later set forth in Summerhaze, namely, that “any judgment against the insured will also conclusively bind the insurer” that breaches the duty to defend, Summerhaze, 2014 UT 28, ¶ 37 (emphasis added) 20180699-CA 52 2023 UT App 136 Farm Bureau v. Weston (quotation otherwise simplified), or that “an insurer may challenge its liability for the judgment, contest the amount of damages, or set forth any other available defense that the insured neglected to make” only if the insurer was not put on notice of the lawsuit, id. | 1 | 1 |
Lum v. Stinnettgreen2 sentences1989See Lum, 87 Nev. at 411 , 488 P.2d at 352 (counsel acknowledged agreement might prejudice jury because of references to insurance); cf. Cox, 594 P.2d at 359 (refusal to allow cross-examination of witness as to settlement with an insurer is error even though it incidentally discloses existence of insurance). 1989See Lum, 87 Nev. at 411 , 488 P.2d at 352 (counsel acknowledged agreement might prejudice jury because of references to insurance); cf. Cox, 594 P.2d at 359 (refusal to allow cross-examination of witness as to settlement with an insurer is error even though it incidentally discloses existence of insurance). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farm Bureau v. Weston
green
2 sentences2023This, in our view, insufficiently counters the mandates our Supreme Court later set forth in Summerhaze, namely, that “any judgment against the insured will also conclusively bind the insurer” that breaches the duty to defend, Summerhaze, 2014 UT 28, ¶ 37 (emphasis added) 20180699-CA 52 2023 UT App 136 Farm Bureau v. Weston (quotation otherwise simplified), or that “an insurer may challenge its liability for the judgment, contest the amount of damages, or set forth any other available defense that the insured neglected to make” only if the insurer was not put on notice of the lawsuit, id. 2023This, in our view, insufficiently counters the mandates our Supreme Court later set forth in Summerhaze, namely, that “any judgment against the insured will also conclusively bind the insurer” that breaches the duty to defend, Summerhaze, 2014 UT 28, ¶ 37 (emphasis added) 20180699-CA 52 2023 UT App 136 Farm Bureau v. Weston (quotation otherwise simplified), or that “an insurer may challenge its liability for the judgment, contest the amount of damages, or set forth any other available defense that the insured neglected to make” only if the insurer was not put on notice of the lawsuit, id. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Benjamin v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2025In other words, “When in doubt, defend.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶63 The court of appeals held that a genuine factual dispute regarding proper cancellation of an otherwise valid insurance policy renders coverage uncertain and requires the insurer to provide a defense until the cancellation dispute is resolved. 2025In other words, “When in doubt, defend.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶63 The court of appeals held that a genuine factual dispute regarding proper cancellation of an otherwise valid insurance policy renders coverage uncertain and requires the insurer to provide a defense until the cancellation dispute is resolved. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Canyon Country Store v. Bracey
green
1 sentence1997The trial court's ruling was apparently based on its reading of Canyon Country Store v. Bracey, 781 P.2d 414 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Travelers Insurance v. Hunter
neutral
1 sentence1938App. 489 , 70 S. W. 798 , a case where insured was accidentally injured and died, the insurer claim *579 ing death was due to rheumatism, claiming that insured had a running sore on his arm, eczema, and a tendency to rheumatism, having previously suffered from it; Ludwig v. Preferred, Accid. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.