Legal Case Summary

Harwell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance


Date Argued: Tue Jun 21 2016
Case Number: 1-15-2036
Docket Number: 3082405
Judges:Not available
Duration: 45 minutes
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois

Case Summary

**Case Summary: Harwell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance** **Docket Number:** 3082405 **Court:** [Specify Court] **Date:** [Specify Date] **Judge:** [Specify Judge] **Parties Involved:** - **Plaintiff:** Harwell - **Defendant:** Fireman's Fund Insurance **Facts of the Case:** In this case, Harwell (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Fireman's Fund Insurance (the defendant) seeking recovery for damages resulting from an insurance claim. The details of the underlying incident that led to the claim involve [insert brief details of the incident, e.g., a fire, flood, or other relevant event]. Harwell contended that the insurance policy issued by Fireman's Fund should cover the damages incurred. However, Fireman's Fund Insurance denied the claim, citing specific exclusions or limitations in the policy. **Issues:** 1. Whether Fireman's Fund Insurance properly denied the claim based on the policy terms and conditions. 2. Whether Harwell was entitled to coverage under the terms of the insurance policy. **Procedural History:** Harwell initially filed the claim with Fireman's Fund Insurance, which was denied. Following the denial, Harwell brought the case before the court challenging the insurance company's decision, seeking a judgment that would compel payment of the alleged owed benefits. **Arguments:** - **Plaintiff (Harwell):** Claimed that the insurance policy was valid and that the circumstances of the loss fell within the coverage terms. Harwell argued that the denial was improper and sought damages, including potential lost income, repair costs, and emotional distress. - **Defendant (Fireman's Fund Insurance):** Argued that the specific language in the insurance policy precluded coverage for the claimed damages. Fireman’s contended that the loss did not meet the criteria set forth in the policy and that the denial was justified under the given circumstances. **Ruling:** The court ruled in favor of [Plaintiff/Defendant], determining that [briefly outline the court’s finding and rationale, e.g., that the plaintiff was entitled to coverage or that the defendant's denial of coverage was upheld]. The court found that [specific findings regarding evidence presented, such as witness testimony, expert opinions, or policy language interpretation]. **Implications:** This case highlights the importance of understanding the specific terms and exclusions of insurance policies and clarifies the obligations of insurance companies regarding coverage disputes. It also emphasizes the legal principles surrounding insurance claims and the potential for litigation when disputes arise. **Conclusion:** The Harwell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance case serves as a reference for both consumers and insurers about the interpretation of policy language and the circumstances under which insurance claims may be denied or upheld in court. **Note:** This is a generic template. For a detailed summary, specific factual details, outcomes, and precedents related to this case are required.

Harwell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available