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.
7 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Continental Insurance Company v. Bussellgreen1 sentence1981“Reasonable expectations.” We agree with Wainscott that Deborah should be found to have been an additional insured under the rule of construction that the policy must be construed “so as to provide that coverage which a layman would reasonably have expected given his lay interpretation of the policy’s terms.” Continental Insurance Co. v. Bussel, 498 P.2d 706, 710 (Alaska 1972). | 1 | 1 |
Marwell Construction, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Londongreen1 sentence1979Marwell Construction, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 465 P.2d 298, 307 (Alaska 1970). | 1 | 1 |
The Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. The Insurance Company Of North Americagreen1 sentence1979Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 595 F.2d 128, 137 (3rd Cir. 1979). 4 .The Providence Washington policy covers Christy and Blohm as an insured under a clause which includes another “person or organization but only with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions of an insured. | 1 | 1 |
Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. Porter and Jeffersongreen1 sentence1979In this situation Theodore comports with the reasonable expectations of the insured as to the defense that will be provided because it is clear that the insurer has promised to defend any suit alleging a claim within the coverage of the policy even if such suit is “groundless, false, or fraudulent.” Id. at 365 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brannon v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2014After the insurance company has denied the insured a defense, it would be potentially unfair to require the insured to file a lawsuit against the insurance company while simultaneously defending himself in the underlying lawsuit.[46] 42 Id. at 283 . 43 Id. 44 Id. 2014After the insurance company has denied the insured a defense, it would be potentially unfair to require the insured to file a lawsuit against the insurance company while simultaneously defending himself in the underlying lawsuit.[46] 42 Id. at 283 . 43 Id. 44 Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Continental Insurance Co. v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 296 n. 28. 1993Id. at 296 n. 28. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Afcan v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1992Afcan, 595 P.2d at 645 . 10 We indicated in Afean that, in a case where the allegations in the complaint include grounds for relief both within and beyond policy coverage, an insurance company which withdraws its defense in breach of its obligation to defend is liable for the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the insured in the defense of the claim, but it is not barred from attempting to show in a subsequent action the loss is not within policy coverage. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.