8 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skaling v. Aetna Insurancegreen2 sentences2019Although Skaling v. Aetna Insurance Company , 799 A.2d 997 (R.I. 2002), "involved the first party claim of an insured against an insurer rather than a third-party claim as was at issue in Asermely , we indicated that both cases implicated similar policy concerns[.]" DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Company , 26 A.3d 585 , 608 (R.I. 2011). 2011Although Skaling II involved the first-party claim of an insured against an insurer rather than a third-party claim as was at issue in Asermely , we indicated that both cases implicated similar policy concerns; we emphasized that, even if a claim against an insured is fairly debatable, an insurer *609 "is nonetheless obliged to engage in settlement discussions in an effort to relieve the insured from the burden and expense of litigation." Id. at 1011. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Muhammadgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Muhammad, 451 P.3d 1060, 1072 (Wash. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
DeMarco v. Travelers Insurance Co.green2 sentences2019Furthermore, we decided that the risk of collusion between the plaintiff and the insured "was sufficiently low in the case at bar that upholding the validity of the assignment does not contravene public policy." Id. at 628 . *532 In their papers to this Court, the Alveses rely primarily on certain wording from our opinion in DeMarco to advance their contention that third parties may bring a claim, under Asermely , directly against an insurer, without an assignment: "Although Skaling II involved the first-party claim of an insured against an insurer rather than a third-party claim as was at iss 2019Furthermore, we decided that the risk of collusion between the plaintiff and the insured "was sufficiently low in the case at bar that upholding the validity of the assignment does not contravene public policy." Id. at 628 . *532 In their papers to this Court, the Alveses rely primarily on certain wording from our opinion in DeMarco to advance their contention that third parties may bring a claim, under Asermely , directly against an insurer, without an assignment: "Although Skaling II involved the first-party claim of an insured against an insurer rather than a third-party claim as was at iss | 1 | 1 |
Domermuth Petroleum Equipment & Maintenance Corp. v. Herzog & Hopkins, Inc.green1 sentence2005LEXIS 4710 at *27 (KS 2002) (where an insured proactively settled a third party claim by paying for property damage caused by leaky windows he installed before the homeowners filed a lawsuit, the insured was entitled to reimbursement under his CGL policy because in Kansas a lawsuit by a third party is not a condition precedent to an insurer's obligation to pay); Domermuth Petroleum Equipment Maintainence Corp., 490 N.Y.S.2d 54, 56 (1985) (holding that an insurer was obligated to pay for voluntary cleanup costs that the insured undertook because a state navigation statute imposed strict liabili | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforetgreen1 sentence2002State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55, 62 (Fla.1995). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 504749green2 sentences2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) (“plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14” was not met where “there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable”); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible 2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) ("plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14" was not met where "there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable"); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim "is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible | 1 | 1 |
cluster 366346green2 sentences2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) (“plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14” was not met where “there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable”); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible 2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) ("plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14" was not met where "there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable"); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim "is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible | 1 | 1 |
Danks v. Hollandgreen2 sentences2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) (“plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14” was not met where “there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable”); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible 2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) ("plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14" was not met where "there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable"); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim "is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carpenter v. United States
green
2 sentences2023In Carpenter, the Court rejected the application of the doctrine to historical CSLI “[g]iven the unique nature of cell phone location records * * *.” Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 . 2023Id. at 2219 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Greco v. Tampa Wholesale Co.
green
1 sentence2007Therefore, without notice of the demand, a third party purchasing the certificate could be misled about the rights it is obtaining and expose the corporation "to a third-party claim inconsistent with the dissenter's demand for payment." Greco , 417 So. 2d. at 998 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gabbidon v. King
green
2 sentences2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) (“plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14” was not met where “there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable”); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim “is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible 2002See Stewart v. American International Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1988) (court did not err in dismissing third-party complaint where there was no derivative or secondary liability alleged in the complaint); U.S. General, Inc. v. City of Joliet, 598 F.2d 1050, 1053 (7th Cir.1979) ("plain condition on the face of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 14" was not met where "there was no claim that any one of the additional parties would be secondarily liable"); Gabbidon v. King, 414 Mass. 685 , 610 N.E.2d 321 , 322 (1993) (a third-party claim "is intended to be used in situations of indemnity or possible | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sands v. Pa. Ins. Guaranty Ass'n
red
2 sentences1997The only ease cited by counsel that dealt with a similar exhaustion requirement was Sands v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association, 283 Pa.Super. 217 , 423 A.2d 1224 (1980). 1997The only ease cited by counsel that dealt with a similar exhaustion requirement was Sands v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association, 283 Pa.Super. 217 , 423 A.2d 1224 (1980). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.