policy defense in Nebraska

1969Co. v. Sailors, 180 Neb. 201 , 141 N. W. 2d 846 , it is held that: “An insurer cannot assert a breach of the cooperation clause as a policy defense in the absence of a showing of prejudice or detriment to the insurer.” In the present instance, it would appear that insurer was definitely prejudiced.

1969Co. v. Sailors, 180 Neb. 201 , 141 N. W. 2d 846 , it is held that: “An insurer cannot assert a breach of the cooperation clause as a policy defense in the absence of a showing of prejudice or detriment to the insurer.” In the present instance, it would appear that insurer was definitely prejudiced.

1966We held in Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. Stoker, 154 Neb. 466 , 48 N. W. 2d 623 : “An insurer does not have the right without consent of the insured to retain control of the defense of an action indemnifiable under the apparent terms of an insurance policy and at the same time reserve the right to disclaim liability on the policy.” It is also pertinent to observe that the burden of proving noncooperation is on the insurer who urges it as a policy defense.

1966We held in Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. Stoker, 154 Neb. 466 , 48 N. W. 2d 623 : “An insurer does not have the right without consent of the insured to retain control of the defense of an action indemnifiable under the apparent terms of an insurance policy and at the same time reserve the right to disclaim liability on the policy.” It is also pertinent to observe that the burden of proving noncooperation is on the insurer who urges it as a policy defense.

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2021App. 1987). 44 Compare § 733.2121(3)(a) and Jones, supra note 43 , with § 45-3-801 and Corlett, supra note 43 . 45 See, Jones, supra note 43 ; Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel, 26 So. 3d 628 (Fla. App. 2009), disapproved on other grounds, Jones, supra note 43 . - 222 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LODER Cite as 308 Neb. 210 might otherwise be meritorious claims, the burden of pleading and proof regarding compliance with the provisions properly rests on one claiming the benefit of those provisions.” 46 In fact, some UPC states that do not have a knowl

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2021App. 1987). 44 Compare § 733.2121(3)(a) and Jones, supra note 43 , with § 45-3-801 and Corlett, supra note 43 . 45 See, Jones, supra note 43 ; Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel, 26 So. 3d 628 (Fla. App. 2009), disapproved on other grounds, Jones, supra note 43 . - 222 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LODER Cite as 308 Neb. 210 might otherwise be meritorious claims, the burden of pleading and proof regarding compliance with the provisions properly rests on one claiming the benefit of those provisions.” 46 In fact, some UPC states that do not have a knowl

2021App. 1987). 44 Compare § 733.2121(3)(a) and Jones, supra note 43 , with § 45-3-801 and Corlett, supra note 43 . 45 See, Jones, supra note 43 ; Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel, 26 So. 3d 628 (Fla. App. 2009), disapproved on other grounds, Jones, supra note 43 . - 222 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LODER Cite as 308 Neb. 210 might otherwise be meritorious claims, the burden of pleading and proof regarding compliance with the provisions properly rests on one claiming the benefit of those provisions.” 46 In fact, some UPC states that do not have a knowl

2021App. 1987). 44 Compare § 733.2121(3)(a) and Jones, supra note 43 , with § 45-3-801 and Corlett, supra note 43 . 45 See, Jones, supra note 43 ; Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel, 26 So. 3d 628 (Fla. App. 2009), disapproved on other grounds, Jones, supra note 43 . - 222 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LODER Cite as 308 Neb. 210 might otherwise be meritorious claims, the burden of pleading and proof regarding compliance with the provisions properly rests on one claiming the benefit of those provisions.” 46 In fact, some UPC states that do not have a knowl

2021Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 2 ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 , 896 N.W.2d 156 (2017) 3 Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395 , 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015). - 569 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 interrogatories to indicate which issue was determinative of the verdict, it will be presumed that all issues were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and, where a single determinative issue has been presented to the jury free from error, any error in presentin

2016It is precisely for this reason that a principled approach to this issue should be consistent with the basic policy rule that the marital estate should include only property created by the marital partnership. 258 Neb. at 108 , 602 N.W.2d at 662 .

2016It is precisely for this reason that a principled approach to this issue should be consistent with the basic policy rule that the marital estate should include only property created by the marital partnership. 258 Neb. at 108 , 602 N.W.2d at 662 .

1998Neb. 1995), reversed on other grounds 118 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir. 1997), the U.S. District Court stated that under Nebraska law, an automobile insurer may not assert breach of notice or breach of a cooperation clause as a policy defense in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the insurer.

1993U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 881 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1989) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers that boats were allowed in popular swimming area was not a discretionary function because decision did not involve social, economic, or political policy judgment); Denham v. U.S., 834 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1987) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers of submerged concrete anchors in a designated swimming area was not a discretionary act because such conduct was not the type that Congress intended to shield from tort liability); George v. U.S., 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D.

1993U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 881 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1989) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers that boats were allowed in popular swimming area was not a discretionary function because decision did not involve social, economic, or political policy judgment); Denham v. U.S., 834 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1987) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers of submerged concrete anchors in a designated swimming area was not a discretionary act because such conduct was not the type that Congress intended to shield from tort liability); George v. U.S., 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D.

1993Ed. 2d 18 , reconsidered and reinstated after remand 952 F.2d 652 (absence of a governmental warning of the hazards associated with use of rabies viral strain was not a discretionary function because negligently withholding a warning did not involve a policy analysis); Summers v. U.S., 894 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1990), opinion amended and superseded by 905 F.2d 1212 (National Park Service’s failure to warn of potential danger of stepping on hot coals after fire rings were permitted on public beach was not a discretionary function because the decision did not involve balancing competing policy cons

1993Ed. 2d 18 , reconsidered and reinstated after remand 952 F.2d 652 (absence of a governmental warning of the hazards associated with use of rabies viral strain was not a discretionary function because negligently withholding a warning did not involve a policy analysis); Summers v. U.S., 894 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1990), opinion amended and superseded by 905 F.2d 1212 (National Park Service’s failure to warn of potential danger of stepping on hot coals after fire rings were permitted on public beach was not a discretionary function because the decision did not involve balancing competing policy cons

1993Ed. 2d 18 , reconsidered and reinstated after remand 952 F.2d 652 (absence of a governmental warning of the hazards associated with use of rabies viral strain was not a discretionary function because negligently withholding a warning did not involve a policy analysis); Summers v. U.S., 894 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1990), opinion amended and superseded by 905 F.2d 1212 (National Park Service’s failure to warn of potential danger of stepping on hot coals after fire rings were permitted on public beach was not a discretionary function because the decision did not involve balancing competing policy cons

1993U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 881 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1989) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers that boats were allowed in popular swimming area was not a discretionary function because decision did not involve social, economic, or political policy judgment); Denham v. U.S., 834 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1987) (Army Corps of Engineers’ failure to warn swimmers of submerged concrete anchors in a designated swimming area was not a discretionary act because such conduct was not the type that Congress intended to shield from tort liability); George v. U.S., 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D.

1974In Southie House v. Grand Lodge, Colored Knights of Pythias of Texas, 48 S. W. 2d 674 (Tex. Civ.

1966White v. Boulton, 259 Minn. 325 , 107 N. W. 2d 370 ; Allen v. Cheatum, 351 Mich. 585 , 88 N. W. 2d 306 ; Campbell v. Allstate Ins.

1966White v. Boulton, 259 Minn. 325 , 107 N. W. 2d 370 ; Allen v. Cheatum, 351 Mich. 585 , 88 N. W. 2d 306 ; Campbell v. Allstate Ins.

1966White v. Boulton, 259 Minn. 325 , 107 N. W. 2d 370 ; Allen v. Cheatum, 351 Mich. 585 , 88 N. W. 2d 306 ; Campbell v. Allstate Ins.

1966White v. Boulton, 259 Minn. 325 , 107 N. W. 2d 370 ; Allen v. Cheatum, 351 Mich. 585 , 88 N. W. 2d 306 ; Campbell v. Allstate Ins.

1957Even under such a policy the insurer is still not liable to defend a suit based on a claim outside the coverage of the policy.” In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Reinhart & Donovan Co., 171 F. 2d 681 , it was stated that an insurer who was not liable under the policy for a claim sued on was not required to defend such suit merely because in the policy the insurer had agreed to defend all suits seeking to enforce such claims even though groundless, the court stating that an insurer is not obligated to defend the groundless suit when it would not be liable under its policy contract for

1897Co. v. Heiduk, 30 Neb., 296 ; Hughes v. Insurance Co. of North America, 40 Neb., 626 .) Prom this it follows that the district court erred in reforming the policy, and entering judgment thereon.

1897The statement of Mr. Wright to defendant’s agent when the risk was solicited, that the former intended to take out additional insurance on the property, is not notice that the insured had procured such additional insurance. [Eagle Fire Co. of New York v. Globe Loan & Trust Co., 44 Neb., 380 .) The procuring of the subsequent insurance by the insured on the property without the knowledge of the defendant or its written consent therefor being indorsed on the policy is in violation of the clause therein forbidding additional insurance, and avoids the policy. [German Ins.

1896Co. v. Etherton, 25 Neb., 505 .) The last mentioned case furnishes an additional reason for the rejection of the defense based upon the refusal of the plaintiff below to arbitrate, viz., that the denial by the defendant company of its liability under the policy is a waiver of whatever right it. may have had to insist upon the means therein provided for ascertaining the amount of the plaintiff’s damage.