Duty to Defend Under Rescinded Policy
Because it had jurisdiction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the State Board proceedings after the Insurer’s rescission and restitution claims had been resolved by the federal jury. In sum, this case does not present a collision between federal and state interests. The district court properly wrote the final chapter in the case, with the parallel proceeding ultimately having no impact on the final reckoning.
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.