By John McGill
It's not every day that a monkey wrench can be thrown with such accuracy and do as much damage as the 4th District does with its decision in Forecast Homes Inc. v Steadfast Insurance Co. (2010 DJDAR 2379). Using nothing more than the (very) literal interpretation of an insurance policy's language, the court has now provided insurance companies with instructions for avoiding their obligations to pay under an additional insured endorsement....
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In