Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., No. 13-2000 (1st Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 12, 2014.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2000 EVAN ARDENTE, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows: On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says: "The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
