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 West Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. U.S. Silica Co.green1 sentence2025Va. 540, 546 , 788 S.E.2d 286, 292 (2015), stated that [i]n cases which involve liability claims against an insurer, several factors must be considered . . . [to] determine if the delay in notifying the insurance company will bar the claim against the insurer. | 1 | 1 |
Bozeman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2003See Ex parte Bozeman, 420 So.2d 89 (Ala.1982) (plaintiff did not show substantial need by asserting the claims file documents were needed for impeachment of insurance adjuster); Carver v. Allstate Ins. 2003See Ex parte Bozeman, 420 So.2d 89 (Ala.1982) (plaintiff did not show substantial need by asserting the claims file documents were needed for impeachment of insurance adjuster); Carver v. Allstate Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colonial Insurance v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2024Va. 706 , 542 S.E.2d 869 (2000), the SCAWV held that "[a] provision in an insurance contract requiring a policyholder to give the insurance company notice of a claim may be satisfied when notice of a potential claim is provided to a claims representative for the insurance company regardless of whether it was the policyholder who provided the notice." If notice is late, whether provided by the insured or someone else, "several factors must be considered before the Court can determine if the delay in notifying the insurance company will bar the claim against the insurer." Id. at Syl. 2024Va. 706 , 542 S.E.2d 869 (2000), the SCAWV held that "[a] provision in an insurance contract requiring a policyholder to give the insurance company notice of a claim may be satisfied when notice of a potential claim is provided to a claims representative for the insurance company regardless of whether it was the policyholder who provided the notice." If notice is late, whether provided by the insured or someone else, "several factors must be considered before the Court can determine if the delay in notifying the insurance company will bar the claim against the insurer." Id. at Syl. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gibson v. Northfield Insurance
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 47 , 631 S.E.2d at 605 . 12 13 Id. at 47 , 631 S.E.2d at 605 . 16 tends to limit, reduce or nullify that . . . liability coverage . . . is void and ineffective as against public policy. 2022The parties ultimately settled for the amount that remained, with one of the parties reserving the right to seek declaratory relief as to the validity of the “defense within limits” provision and the amounts “spent by the insurance company on defense costs to the date of the settlement.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bail
green
2 sentences2004I believe that, “[jjustice delayed is justice denied.” State v. Bail, 140 W.Va. 680 , 88 S.E.2d 634 (1955). 2004I believe that, “[jjustice delayed is justice denied.” State v. Bail, 140 W.Va. 680 , 88 S.E.2d 634 (1955). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Dairyland Insurance v. Voshel
green
2 sentences2000Co. v. Voshel, 189 W.Va. 121 , 428 S.E.2d 542 (1993): In cases which involve liability claims against an insurer, several factors must be considered before the Court can determine if the delay in notifying the insurance company will bar the claim against the insurer. 2000Co. v. Voshel, 189 W.Va. 121 , 428 S.E.2d 542 (1993): In cases which involve liability claims against an insurer, several factors must be considered before the Court can determine if the delay in notifying the insurance company will bar the claim against the insurer. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assn.
green
1 sentence1904And any change or transfer of the interest of tbe insured in tbe property, of a nature calculated to have this effect, is a violation of the policy.” In the case of Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Association, 183 U. S. 308 , it is said, that contracts in writ ing, if in nnambigous terms, must be permitted to speak for themselves and cannot, by the Courts, at tbe instance of one of tbe parties, be altered or contradicted by parole evidence, unless in cases of fraud or mutual mistake of facts; that this principle is applicable to cases of insurance contracts as fully as to contrac | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.