Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 5, 1998No. 78,661Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLarson, J.

I concur with the majority opinion as to its construction of the settlement agreement and what is said in (1) The Agreement. I also agree with the majority opinion insofar as it relates to Statute of Limitations, Estoppel, and Laches, (3) Factual Basis for Claims of Negligent Hiring, Retention, or Supervision, and (4) Respondeat Superior.

I disagree with and respectfully dissent from the conclusion and result of that portion of die majority opinion entitled: (2) Claims of Negligent Hiring, Retention, or Supervision.

I recognize that the provisions of the exclusions in the contractor’s policy…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. McManusTexas Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Upland Mutual Insurance, Inc. v. NoelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  3. Catholic Diocese of Dodge City v. RaymerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992
  4. Barnstable County Mutual Fire Insurance v. LallyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  5. Worcester Mutual Insurance v. MarnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986

30 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