In a case of first impression, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that testimony about what happened to missing merchandise could not satisfy the "physical evidence" requirement found in a contract between a jeweler and an insurer.
While the Superior Court wrongly said the testimony could stand in for physical evidence, the justices still affirmed its decision, since other physical evidence as required in the contract had been presented.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
