Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLawson, Guyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-14T20:14:51Z
dc.date.available2013-02-14T20:14:51Z
dc.date.issued1985en_US
dc.identifier.citation18 Creighton L. Rev. 389 (1984-1985)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/39554
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|Insurance is purchased by insureds to cover losses caused by the occurrence of a specific undesired event. Naturally, insureds are shocked when the insured event occurs and they discover that insurance coverage is nonexistent. |Depending on the circumstances, courts provide insureds with relief from the unexpected lack of coverage by applying rules of construction to insurance policies. However, courts traditionally have not relieved insureds from the unexpected lack of coverage occasioned by an insurance policy provision known as a visible marks clause. A visible marks clause is usually found in burglary or theft insurance policies and requires visible marks of forcible entry on an automobile or a building before the insured may recover for a loss. However, some courts have allowed the insured to recover on the policy despite the lack of visible marks of forced entry. In not enforcing the visible marks provisions, these courts have found that such provisions defeat the insured's objectively reasonable expectations of insurance coverage...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleCochran Revisited: The Reasonable Expectations of the Insured and the Visible Marks of Forcible Entry Liability Limitationen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume18en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1984-1985en_US
dc.description.pages389en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record