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:

Related Book For  book-img-for-question

Business Law Text and Cases

ISBN: 978-1285185248

13th edition

Authors: Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller, Frank Cross

Question Posted: