Yoder v. American Travellers Life Insurance

2 Citing briefs

  1. Sen et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed February 15, 2008

    Again, Defendant made no such disclosure.                                                              3 See also Haley v. AIG, 2002 WL 417419, No. A2-01-49, at *5-7 (D.N.D. Jan. 24, 2002); Advent v. Allstate Ins. Co., 862 N.E.2d 871, 879-880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006); Roy v. Audubon, 652 So.2d 995, 997 (La. Ct. App. 1993); Yoder v. Am. Travellers, 814 A.2d 229, 233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). Case 1:07-cv-06519 Document 28 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 15 of 34 9    Further, Plaintiffs are not merely complaining that Defendant did not notify them of the FCC rule change, but that Defendant did not adequately notify them that their TeleAid system would not work for the useful life span of their car. Given its active involvement in the FCC rulemaking, MBUSA was in a superior position to know that the TeleAid system was analog- only and that wireless carriers would stop providing analog service.

  2. Sen et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed January 9, 2008

    CV-06-1494-PHX-DGC, 2007 WL 1559935, *3 (D. Ariz. May 29, 2007) (“Defendant did not have an obligation to inform Plaintiffs of the change in the law.”); Advent v. Allstate Ins. Co., 862 N.E.2d 871, 879-880 (Ohio App. Ct. 2006) (recognizing that an “insurer has no duty to inform its insureds about a change in Case 1:07-cv-06519 Document 22 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 14 of 29 2768760 9 insurance law”); Roy v. Audubon Ins. Co., 652 So.2d 995, 997 (La. App. Ct. 1993) (same); Yoder v. American Travellers Life Ins. Co., 814 A.2d 229, 233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (“we can find no support in Pennsylvania law for such an extraordinary duty.”).