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.
12 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2005Co. , 223 Va. 145 , 147 , 286 S.E.2d 225 , 226 (1982) (holding that there was "nothing in the [automobile liability insurance] Act which mandates that certified policies provide greater protection to the insured than the standard policy. " (Emphasis added.)). 2005Co. , 223 Va. 145 , 147 , 286 S.E.2d 225 , 226 (1982) (holding that there was "nothing in the [automobile liability insurance] Act which mandates that certified policies provide greater protection to the insured than the standard policy. " (Emphasis added.)). | 1 | 1 |
Queen Insurance v. Younggreen1 sentence1943The doctrine of waiver and estoppel, as applied to the law of insurance, arises out of and is rested upon dealings between the insurer and insured in respect to the insurer’s obligation to pay the loss sustained by the insured and that doctrine, stated by this court more than a half century ago is : “If the company, after knowledge of the breach, enters into negotiations or transactions with the assured which recognize and treat the policy as still in force, or induces the assured to incur trouble or expense, it will be regarded as having waived the right to claim the forfeiture.” Queen Insura | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Service, Inc. v. Nixon
green
2 sentences1978Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Service v. Nixon, 268 Ala. 271 , 105 So.2d 643 (1958). 1978Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Service v. Nixon, 268 Ala. 271 , 105 So.2d 643 (1958). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Liquor Liability Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Hermitage Insurance
green
2 sentences2013Co. (1995) 419 Mass. 316 , 644 N.E.2d 964 , 44 A.L.R.5th 787 , the court declared that an assault victim’s claims of negligence against the insured bar ... did not fall within an assault and battery exclusion in that tavern’s insurance policy. 2013Co. (1995) 419 Mass. 316 , 644 N.E.2d 964 , 44 A.L.R.5th 787 , the court declared that an assault victim’s claims of negligence against the insured bar ... did not fall within an assault and battery exclusion in that tavern’s insurance policy. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Williamson v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2001This Court, in Hogan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 730 So.2d 1157 (Ala.1998), overruled on other grounds, Williamson v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co., 741 So.2d 1057 (Ala.1999), held that an insured has a claim against his UM carrier when his claim against the driver of the vehicle in which he is a passenger is defeated by the operation of the guest statute (§ 32-1-2, Ala.Code 1975). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hogan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2001This Court, in Hogan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 730 So.2d 1157 (Ala.1998), overruled on other grounds, Williamson v. Indianapolis Life Insurance Co., 741 So.2d 1057 (Ala.1999), held that an insured has a claim against his UM carrier when his claim against the driver of the vehicle in which he is a passenger is defeated by the operation of the guest statute (§ 32-1-2, Ala.Code 1975). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS v. Liao
green
1 sentence1990If the one responsible has paid the full extent of the loss, the insured should not claim both sums, and the insurer may then assert its claim to subrogation.' (Emphasis added [in Liao ].) [Footnote omitted.] "We recognize that, while the doctrine of subrogation is of purely equitable origin and nature, it may be modified by contract." 548 So.2d at 164-66 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence1987The rules regarding an insurer's duty to defend are set out in United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Armstrong , 479 So.2d 1164 , 1167 (Ala. 1985), as follows: "Whether an insurance company owes a duty to provide an insured with a defense to proceedings instituted against him must be determined primarily from the allegations of the complaint. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
cluster 302916
green
1 sentence1977Bandy v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 458 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1972). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ruth Vick O'Brien v. Thelma Rosedith Todgham Vick Elder, and United States of America
green
1 sentence1969Paragraph 7 of that separation agreement read: “That upon the performance of all the conditions contained in this stipulation, neither party hereto shall have any claim on the other party of any kind whatsoever including that for alimony.” (Emphasis supplied) We quote from the majority opinion in O’Brien v. Elder, supra: “ * * * The beneficiary’s interest though only an expectancy is therefore derived from the insured and is a claim subsumed under the release in this agreement by the wife of ‘any claim [against the husband] * * * of any kind whatsoever.’ Where the right to change the beneficia | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Pryor v. Gowan
neutral
2 sentences1960The case of Pryor v. Gowan, 204 Ala. 257 , 85 So. 370 , referred to by the trial court where the consideration for the first premium was the agreement’to convey two lots to the agent, less $60 to be repaid to insured is entirely different as to facts from the case at bar, and has no application here. 1960The case of Pryor v. Gowan, 204 Ala. 257 , 85 So. 370 , referred to by the trial court where the consideration for the first premium was the agreement’to convey two lots to the agent, less $60 to be repaid to insured is entirely different as to facts from the case at bar, and has no application here. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Williams v. Branning Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1937Co., 153 N.C. 7 , 68 S.E. 902 , 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 679, 138 Am.St.Rep. 637 , note 648, 21 Ann.Cas. 954, citing the authorities: 2 R.C.L. § 17, page 370; 3 Cyc. 613 (111).” It would follow, therefore, from the principles of law above announced, that if the insured has wrongfully prevented an award from being made and published, or that he has withdrawn from the arbitration and brought suit on the policy, before securing an award on the arbitration, without any fault on the part of the insurer, such action or actions on the part of the insured would be a bar to the action at law brought by the insu 1937Co., 153 N.C. 7 , 68 S.E. 902 , 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 679, 138 Am.St.Rep. 637 , note 648, 21 Ann.Cas. 954, citing the authorities: 2 R.C.L. § 17, page 370; 3 Cyc. 613 (111).” It would follow, therefore, from the principles of law above announced, that if the insured has wrongfully prevented an award from being made and published, or that he has withdrawn from the arbitration and brought suit on the policy, before securing an award on the arbitration, without any fault on the part of the insurer, such action or actions on the part of the insured would be a bar to the action at law brought by the insu | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.