6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Diltsgreen2 sentences2009In Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257 (Ind.1984), this Court distinguished insurance policy provisions requiring an insured to give notice to the insurer from provisions requiring the insured to cooperate *1272 with the insurer's investigation and defense of a claim, holding that an insurer "must show actual prejudice from an insured's noncompliance with the policy's cooperation clause before it can avoid liability under the policy." Id. at 261 . 2009In Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257 (Ind.1984), this Court distinguished insurance policy provisions requiring an insured to give notice to the insurer from provisions requiring the insured to cooperate *1272 with the insurer's investigation and defense of a claim, holding that an insurer "must show actual prejudice from an insured's noncompliance with the policy's cooperation clause before it can avoid liability under the policy." Id. at 261 . | 1 | 3 |
Smithers v. Mettertgreen1 sentence2004See Smithers, 513 N.E.2d at 662 ; see also Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257, 261 (Ind.1984) (where our supreme court held that an insurance company must show actual prejudice from an insured's noncompliance with the policy's cooperation clause before it can avoid liability under the policy). | 1 | 1 |
Rinard v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Rinard v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 56 , 351 N.E.2d 20, 25 (no error in trial court's exclusion of witness where testimony would have been cumulative and repetitious). 1995Rinard v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 56 , 351 N.E.2d 20, 25 (no error in trial court's exclusion of witness where testimony would have been cumulative and repetitious). | 1 | 1 |
Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Admrx.green2 sentences1983Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson (1966), 139 Ind.App. 622, 628 , 218 N.E.2d 712, 715 . 1983Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Johnson (1966), 139 Ind.App. 622, 628 , 218 N.E.2d 712, 715 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eviston
green
2 sentences1984"The doctrines of 'waiver' and 'estoppel' extend *262 to practically every ground upon which an insurer may deny liability." Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eviston, (1941) 110 Ind.App. 143, 154 , 37 N.E.2d 310, 314 . 1984"The doctrines of 'waiver' and 'estoppel' extend *262 to practically every ground upon which an insurer may deny liability." Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eviston, (1941) 110 Ind.App. 143, 154 , 37 N.E.2d 310, 314 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Siwy
green
2 sentences1984Motorist, supra. The same cannot be said of the notice provision because, as Judge Hoffman stated, "[nljotice is a threshold requirement which must be met before an insurer is even aware that a controversy or matter exists which requires the cooperation of the insured." The notice requirement is "material, and of the essence of the contract." London Guarantee, supra, 35 Ind.App. at 345 , 66 N.E. at 482 . 1984Motorist, supra. The same cannot be said of the notice provision because, as Judge Hoffman stated, "[nljotice is a threshold requirement which must be met before an insurer is even aware that a controversy or matter exists which requires the cooperation of the insured." The notice requirement is "material, and of the essence of the contract." London Guarantee, supra, 35 Ind.App. at 345 , 66 N.E. at 482 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
American Underwriters, Inc. v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1983Cf. American Underwriters, Inc. v. Curtis (1981), Ind., 427 N.E.2d 438, 443 . . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.