Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Insurance bad faith is a tort [1] unique to the law of the United States (but with parallels elsewhere, particularly Canada) that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort.Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution.
Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) [citation needed] It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to ...
Learn about full and limited tort car insurance and if you can sue after an accident.
An intentional tort requires an overt act, some form of intent, and causation. In most cases, transferred intent, which occurs when the defendant intends to injure an individual but actually ends up injuring another individual, will satisfy the intent requirement. [ 31 ]
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...
The most common policy form, HO-3 policies, usually cover personal property losses on a named peril basis. ... Open peril policies shift the burden of proof to the insurance company.
To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3] If the same result would have occurred without negligence by the attorney, no cause of action will be permitted. "But for" or actual causation can ...