Legal Opinion

Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance v. Smith

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided May 10, 2007No. 05-P-1769PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVuono, J.

Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Hing-ham) sought a judgment in the Superior Court declaring that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Karen and Frank Allen, or their minor son, Thomas (the Allens), in an action brought against them by Ellen and John Smith on behalf of themselves and their minor children, Ann and Michael (the Smiths), for damages sustained as a result of alleged sexual abuse of Ann and Michael by Thomas. Karen and Frank Allen appeal4 from a summary judgment generally declaring that Hingham had no duty to defend or indemnify them under any provision in the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  2. Worcester Mutual Insurance v. MarnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  3. Bagley v. Monticello InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  4. Liquor Liability Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Hermitage InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  5. New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Valley Forge Insurance v. FieldCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
  2. Pharmacists Mutual Insurance v. MyerSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  3. Philbrick v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2007
  4. American Family Mutual Insurance v. BowerDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
  5. Dueno v. Modern USA Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API