Auto Insurer's Fail to Meet Noncooperation Disclaimer Standard: Pepper V. Geico (Courtside)

Auto Insurer's Fail to Meet Noncooperation Disclaimer Standard: Pepper V. Geico (Courtside)

Auto Insurer's Fail to Meet Noncooperation Disclaimer Standard: Pepper V. Geico (Courtside‪)‬

Insurance Advocate 2010, July 31, 121, 13

Lawrence N. Rogak

- 2,99 €

- 2,99 €

In April 2008, Daniel Pepper was riding a bicycle when a car operated by Yolanda Johnson swerved towards him allegedly causing him to fall from his bicycle and sustain personal injuries. In mid-April 2008, Pepper's counsel, both verbally and in writing, notified Johnson's no-fault insurer, Geico that the accident had occurred. In response, Geico claims examiner Frances Moran opened a claims file on April 18, 2008 when plaintiff's counsel advised Geico that the accident had occurred. Since no police report had been filed, Geico attempted to contact Johnson to secure confirmatory details about the accident. Moran called Johnson at work on April 21, 2008, around mid-day, and was told that Johnson was out in the field. Moran then left a message about the claim together with her return phone number.

GENRE

Business & Personal Finance

RELEASED

2010

31 July

LANGUAGE

EN

English

LENGTH

9

Pages

PUBLISHER

CINN Group, Inc.

PROVIDER INFO

The Gale Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an affiliate of Cengage Learning, Inc.

SIZE

64.6

KB

B.I. Claimant has No Claim Against Insurer for Failing to Notify Her of Right to Buy Spousal Coverage: Shofler V Geico Ins. Co (Courtside)

B.I. Claimant has No Claim Against Insurer for Failing to Notify Her of Right to Buy Spousal Coverage: Shofler V Geico Ins. Co (Courtside)

B.I. Claimant has No Claim Against Insurer for Failing to Notify Her of Right to Buy Spousal Coverage: Shofler V Geico Ins. Co (Courtside)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Insured May Not Refuse to Answer EUO Questions on Basis of "Spousal Privilege" (Courtside)

Insured May Not Refuse to Answer EUO Questions on Basis of "Spousal Privilege" (Courtside)

Insured May Not Refuse to Answer EUO Questions on Basis of "Spousal Privilege" (Courtside)

Something You'll Want to Tell Your Insureds; One New Development; And Two Points I've Overlooked: Plaintiff Sues Your Insured by Serving the NY Secretary of State; Ambiguity and Extrinsic Evidence; Groundless, False Or Fraudulent Liability Claims; Motor Truck Cargo Insurance Revision (Exposures and Coverages)

Something You'll Want to Tell Your Insureds; One New Development; And Two Points I've Overlooked: Plaintiff Sues Your Insured by Serving the NY Secretary of State; Ambiguity and Extrinsic Evidence; Groundless, False Or Fraudulent Liability Claims; Motor Truck Cargo Insurance Revision (Exposures and Coverages)

Something You'll Want to Tell Your Insureds; One New Development; And Two Points I've Overlooked: Plaintiff Sues Your Insured by Serving the NY Secretary of State; Ambiguity and Extrinsic Evidence; Groundless, False Or Fraudulent Liability Claims; Motor Truck Cargo Insurance Revision (Exposures and Coverages)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Opportunities Missed: Pieces of the Frm Puzzle

Opportunities Missed: Pieces of the Frm Puzzle

Opportunities Missed: Pieces of the Frm Puzzle

Use of Race-Modified Car Comes Under Exclusion--Even Though.... Peter Stephan V Clarendon Natl. Ins (Courtside)

Use of Race-Modified Car Comes Under Exclusion--Even Though.... Peter Stephan V Clarendon Natl. Ins (Courtside)

Use of Race-Modified Car Comes Under Exclusion--Even Though.... Peter Stephan V Clarendon Natl. Ins (Courtside)

Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside)

Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside)

Internet Postings Alone Do Not Constitute "Doing Business" in New York for out of State Resident: Gary Null & Assoc., Inc. V Phillips (Courtside)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Despite Insurer's Lack of Founded Belief in Fraudulent Incorporation, EUO No-Show Results in Suit Dismissal: Andrew Gegerson DPM Et Al. A/a/O Dana Frazier V State Farm Ins. Co (Examination Under Oath)

Trusting Plaintiff's Attorney to Vacate a Default Proves to Be a Costly Mistake: Sz Med., P.C. Et Al. A/a/O Clarice Cowan V Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co (Courtside)

Trusting Plaintiff's Attorney to Vacate a Default Proves to Be a Costly Mistake: Sz Med., P.C. Et Al. A/a/O Clarice Cowan V Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co (Courtside)

Trusting Plaintiff's Attorney to Vacate a Default Proves to Be a Costly Mistake: Sz Med., P.C. Et Al. A/a/O Clarice Cowan V Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co (Courtside)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Once Again, Insurer is Criticized for Claims Practices: It "Borders on Impropriety" to Selectively Cite Old, Obsolete Arb Decisions (Courtside)

Pre-Claim Ime No Show Supports Denial, Even if for a Different Specialty Than Bill; Only One Pre-and Post-Claim No Shows Required for Denial: Prime Psychological Servs., Pc a/a/O Brent Horne V Elrac, Inc. (Courtside)

Pre-Claim Ime No Show Supports Denial, Even if for a Different Specialty Than Bill; Only One Pre-and Post-Claim No Shows Required for Denial: Prime Psychological Servs., Pc a/a/O Brent Horne V Elrac, Inc. (Courtside)

Pre-Claim Ime No Show Supports Denial, Even if for a Different Specialty Than Bill; Only One Pre-and Post-Claim No Shows Required for Denial: Prime Psychological Servs., Pc a/a/O Brent Horne V Elrac, Inc. (Courtside)