The SecretariatTopics: Civil case
Information about cases of WV Supreme Court in civil law
?Thursday, September 24, 2009
TORTS, insurance, procedure:: Duty umbrella defend policy, statute of limitations in the first bad faith of the parties
NOLAND v Virginia MUTUAL insurance, et al., no. 34702 (DAVIS, j.).(24 September 2009). Joint relief grant of an order of the Circuit Court of the County of Raleigh that granted partial summary judgment in favor of Virginia mutual insurance and dismissed allegations against the rest. Reviewing the plain language of primary insurance policies and excessive in question to conclude that there was no language which extinguishes the right to COME to continue defending the appellant within the funds remaining in excessive policy after the occurrence of a settlement, especially in light of the fact that the umbrella policy's aim was to provide coverageSince the primary policy limits had been exhausted, to complement the fact that the clear language of the umbrella policy provides that defend the applicant if the primary policy limits are exhausted. Further, concluding that the clause of "insurance other" umbrella policy may not be invoked to prevent his defence of the appellant after the settlement date. Finding that circuit court properly dismissed both common law and statutory bad faith claims on grounds of statute of limitations. Participation in the program point 4 that "[t] a year statute of limitations contained in the code of VA. w. 55-2-12 (c) applies to an allegation of bad faith of common law. " Even safer, in the curriculum section 5: "in an allegation of bad faith first-party that is based on the insurer's refusal to defend, and is brought under code VA. w. 33-11-4 (9) and/or as a common law claim of bad faith, the prescription begins to run on credit when the insured person knows or reasonably should know that the insured refused to defend him or her in an action. "
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!TAXATION: real property assessment: participate in the program of low-income housing tax credit
STONE BROOKE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. SISSINNI, Advisor of BROOKE County, et al., no. 34423-and-HEATHERMOOR limited partnership v. ALONGI, ASSESSOR of the County of HANCOCK, et al., no. 34424-and-PINE HAVEN LIMITED PARTNMERSHIP, et al. v. ADKINS, CABELL County ASSESSOR, et al., no. 34863 (DAVIS, j.).(Benjamin, j., concurring)(Ketchum, j., concurring)(24 September 2009). In three cases consolidated arising out of the circuit courts of Brooke, Hancock, and Cabell Counties, addressing the proper method of determining the value for the purposes of ad valorem taxation of real estate, participating in the program of low-income housing tax credit. Concluding that the orders of Brooke and Hancock County Circuit Court properly defended the selection of the Adviser of the approach cost as the most accurate method to evaluate the properties in question, but concluding that the lower court failed to resolve if the evaluators had examined each of the factors to be considered in the evaluation of commercial real estate established in w. C.S.R. de VA. 110-1 p-2.1.1 to 2.1.4 and remanding even more processes. Reversing the Cabell County Circuit Court order because the evaluator presented substantial evidence to support its approach of cost and order of the Circuit Court did not address whether the evaluator had examined each of the necessary factors and remanding to the re-establishment of the assessments of cost approach and to review the correctness of application of the assessor of the required criteria.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!Real estate property in the context of the public highway
CARPENTER v. Lucas, paragraph 34497 (per Curiam) (September 24, 2009). Affirming an order of the circuit of Harrison County Court that denied a proposal to change or amend the judgment and a proposal for a new trial in a property dispute. Holding that the trial Court correctly entered judgment as a matter of copyright below on the issue of disputed property of certain real estate. Conclude that the trial Court correctly interpreted the context associated with the phrase "middle of the road public" established the description of action, and was even more correct to conclude that the father of defendant below could not have been a bona fide purchaser of land that was not included in its description of the property.
[Permanent Link] ?Google It!The items on this page are archived by day they are posted. Use the calendar to browse posts per day.
OPINION SURVEY
Full-text opinions
Research of1991-presentCourt rules
Links to rules
Links to forms of Conference and argument
Calendar
Live Webcast LINKS TO LAST 50 posts in this category
See this page as XML [RSS 0.92]:
.
没有评论:
发表评论