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.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 27 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co. Anchor | green | “absent such a written rejection, the intent of the various parties is irrelevant to a determination of coverage.” | 6 |
| 2 | Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co. | green | “an affirmative and conscious act.” | 6 |
| 3 | Corley v. Hertz Corp. | green | “necessarily implies that the insured is given a choice between rejecting or accepting uim coverage” | 6 |
| 4 | Galbraith v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh | green | “a writing cannot serve as an effective waiver of uim coverage if it does not show the amount of coverage the insured has in mind.” | 5 |
| 5 | Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co. | green | “only those autos you own which, because of the law in the state where they are licensed or principally garaged, are required to have and cannot reject uninsured motorists insurance.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.