Originally published by Erin Dunnavant.
In the recent case of Rainforest Chocolate, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.,1 the Supreme Court of Vermont found coverage for Rainforest where Sentinel’s “false pretense” exclusion turned out to be ambiguous as there were at least two reasonable interpretations of what constituted “physical loss or physical damages.”2 The underlying action stemmed from Sentinel’s claim…… Continue Reading
.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://bit.ly/2QSIsUN
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment