1. Why did the court conclude that an unoccupied house did not necessarily create a substantial increase...
Question:
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.
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
1A The court stated that in a previous case the court had concluded that it was a matter of common knowledge that there is more danger of an unoccupied house being destroyed by fire than of one occupi...View the full answer
Answered By
Utsab mitra
I have the expertise to deliver these subjects to college and higher-level students. The services would involve only solving assignments, homework help, and others.
I have experience in delivering these subjects for the last 6 years on a freelancing basis in different companies around the globe. I am CMA certified and CGMA UK. I have professional experience of 18 years in the industry involved in the manufacturing company and IT implementation experience of over 12 years.
I have delivered this help to students effortlessly, which is essential to give the students a good grade in their studies.
2+ Reviews
10+ Question Solved
Related Book For 
Business Law Text and Cases
ISBN: 978-1285185248
13th edition
Authors: Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller, Frank Cross
Question Posted:
