Question: 1 Why did the court conclude that an unoccupied house

1. Why did the court conclude that an unoccupied house did not necessarily create a substantial increase in hazard?
2. Why did the court hold that Allstate’s cancellation of the policy, retroactive to November 2001 (when Luster moved to an extended-care facility), was ineffective?
3. Was Luster’s intent to return to her home when her health permitted sufficient to constitute occupancy? Why or why not?
4. What fact, if it was different, might have persuaded the court in this case to rule in Allstate’s favor? Discuss.


View Solution:


Sale on SolutionInn
Sales1
Views285
Comments
  • CreatedJune 18, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000