Legal Opinion

Boehm v. Hanover Insurance

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided May 27, 2009PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtin, J.

This is an appeal of the allowance of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-insurer, Hanover Insurance Company (“Hanover”), on the G.L.c. 90, §34M claim by the plaintiff-chiropractor, Ian J. Boehm, D.C. (“Boehm”), for Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) payment of medical bills.

On March 19,2006, Norman Landano (“Landano”) sustained injuries in an automobile collision while an occupant of a vehicle insured by Hanover under a standard Massachusetts automobile policy. Boehm treated Landano for his injuries from March 21,2006 through August 22,2006, generating medical bills totaling…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. SCA Services, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  3. Fascione v. CNA Insurance CompaniesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  4. Opara v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  5. Boone v. Commerce InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kantorosinski Chiropractic, Inc. v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2011
  2. Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Premier Insurance Co. of MassachusettsMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2010
  3. Fairfield Equine Associates PC v. SafranMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2010
  4. Genest v. Commerce InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API