No-fee downloads of the complaints and so much more! "We may, at our option, waive the requirement for the completion and filing of a proof of loss in certain cases, in which event you will be required to sign, and, at our option, swear to an adjuster's report of the loss which includes information about your loss and the damages sustained, which is needed by us in order to adjust your claim. 3] At this point, we merely hold that the district court erred in holding, on the motion for summary judgment, that subparagraph 5(f) constituted a condition precedent with resulting forfeiture. Direct access to case information and documents. 540 F2d 1345 United States v. A Harvey R. 540 F2d 1355 Savini Construction Co v. Crooks Brothers Construction Co L. 540 F2d 1360 Baldwin v. How a Court Determines Whether Something Is an Obligation or a Condition. Redwood City L Baldwin Q. 785, 786, 101 1468, 67 685 (1981) (holding that government agent's advice that misinformed plaintiff that she was not eligible for social security benefits did not rise to level of affirmative misconduct that might reach a serious question as to whether the government might be estopped from insisting on compliance with a valid regulation required to receive benefits); Federal Crop Ins. So if a contract provides for indemnification, don't leave hold harmless in there simply because it happens to be in whatever language you're copying. 540 F2d 1254 McCarthy v. O'D Askew.
Its pertinent part is as follows: "Our Washington State Director has forwarded for our consideration your letter of May 10, 1956, in regard to claims which several Douglas County wheat farmers expect to litigate, and a copy of his reply dated May 14, 1956. Henderson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 268 N. 129, 150 S. E. 2d 17, 19 (1966). Consumer Protection.
2 F3d 233 Independent Lift Truck Builders Union v. Hyster Company. 540 F2d 102 Lindy Bros Builders Inc of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp Friendswood Development Company. 2 F3d 308 In Re Complaint of John Doe. 3] Even apart from our interpretation of paragraph 5(f), plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment should not have been allowed. 2 F3d 1156 Arlington Group v. Federal crop insurance v merrill. City of Riverside. 2 F3d 986 Price v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company. 2 F3d 1156 Begaye v. Ryan. However, the persuasive force of plaintiffs' argument in this case is found in the use of the term "condition precedent" in subparagraph 5(b) but not in subparagraph 5(f).
Any loss shall be deemed to have occurred at the end of the insurance period, unless the entire wheat crop on the insurance unit was destroyed earlier, in which event the loss shall be deemed to have occurred on the date of such damage as determined by the Corporation. But that approach offers users two unsatisfactory extremes — the model statement of style offers no detail, whereas MSCD offers more detail than many contracts professionals would be willing or able to digest. Listen to the CaseCast. 2 F3d 405 Garcia v. Usa. It was published in the Federal Register of September 21, 1951 (Vol. Said affidavit does not, however, state facts sufficient to absolutely establish that said loss occurred as a result of a risk covered by the policy or to exclude all other possible defenses. To repeat, our narrow holding is that merely plowing or disking under the stalks does not of itself operate to forfeit coverage under the policy. We take for granted that, on the basis of what they were told by the Corporation's local agent, the respondents reasonably believed that their entire crop was covered by petitioner's insurance. Such a showing might have a bearing upon establishing defendant's intention in including 5(f). Accordingly, the plaintiffs hired Thomas Harwell, a structural engineer, to assess the damage to the home from the hurricane-induced flood. 2 F3d 1160 Avalos v. Secretary of United States Department of Health & Human Services. R. s. Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials: Howard v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. case brief. t. u. v. w. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
2 F3d 408 Mail Order Association of America v. United States Postal Service Tvsm. Plaintiffs' affidavit, which was not denied by a counteraffidavit, does state the amount of loss. 2 F3d 1157 Martila v. Garrett Engine Division. United States Reports.
The plaintiffs appeal, claiming the district court erred because it should have precluded FEMA from raising the 60 day limitation as a defense under the doctrines of waiver and equitable estoppel, because it was impossible for them to comply with the 60 day requirement, and because the proof of loss requirements in the policy were ambiguous. 50 per acre for reinstatement of the insurance, and for other relief. Edgar R. Bain, Lellington, N. C., and Holt Felmet, Angier, N. C., for appellants. Atty., and Joseph W. Dean, Asst. 2 F3d 1 Atlantic Healthcare Benefits Trust v. Federal crop insurance corporation new deal. R Googins. 2 F3d 1154 Olmstead v. Lewis C/o C/o C/o.
After this response, the plaintiffs and Fickling and Clement repeatedly contacted FEMA in an attempt to have the claim reopened. 2 F3d 293 Jc Bell v. Al Lockhart. 540 F2d 454 Brennan v. J G Carrasco J G J. The district court granted the defendant summary judgment after determining that the plaintiffs could not recover. Mr. Clark then advised the farmers to "reseed their lost acreage in order to mitigate their damage in view of the repudiation of the contract by Mr. *692 Lawson. " Because they failed to file a proof of loss within 60 days of the occurrence of the damage, as required by their insurance policy, we affirm. 540 F2d 1200 Brennan v. Schwerman Trucking Company of Virginia Inc. 540 F2d 1205 United States v. Lee. 2 F3d 1161 Weatherford v. Bonney. 540 F2d 39 Steamship Singapore Trader Singapore Navigation Company v. Mego Corp. 540 F2d 390 Poindexter v. L Wolff. 540 F2d 548 Miller Ibc v. Contracts Keyed to Kuney. Wells Fargo Bank International Corp. 540 F2d 566 United States v. W Jonas. Thus, Lloyds of London would not pay the plaintiffs for those losses because its policy only covered wind damage. 5, 8, 94 19, 38 7 (1973) (citing Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.
2 F3d 237 United States Internal Revenue Service v. A Charlton. 540 F2d 740 Crowe v. D Leeke S C. 540 F2d 742 United States v. Hamlin. 540 F2d 16 Centredale Investment Company v. Prudential Insurance Company of America. 2 F3d 385 Gordon v. E Nagle. 2 F3d 1160 Beasley v. Marquez. Well, we have bad news, then good news, followed by more bad news and good news: Most contracts prose is dysfunctional, but training is available to help contracts professionals draft clearly and concisely. 5 The plaintiffs also had an adjuster, C. P. Warren, assess the home for wind damage pursuant to their policy with Lloyds of London.
2 F3d 1149 Matthews v. L Waters. 540 F2d 258 Avco Delta Corporation Canada Limited v. United States. The following language of the opinion, I feel, is applicable in the instant case as well: "The case no doubt presents phases of hardship. 2 F3d 1031 Lujan v. J Tansy.
And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. " 2 F3d 559 United States v. Adekunle. 540 F2d 213 Southern Pacific Transportation Company v. National Molasses Company. But in the precedent-driven world of contracts, inertia is a force to be reckoned with.