Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hackett v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided October 31, 1975No. 333246Published

1Concurrence

Doerfer, J. concurring:

I concur in the opinion of Judge Foster. In paragraph 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts it is expressly stated "The policy of insurance by and between the parties involved provided . . . the named insured is the sole owner of the insured motor vehicle unless otherwise stated therein.” (emphasis supplied). From this fact I have no difficulty in inferring that the plaintiff did represent in the policy to which she was a party, that she was the sole owner of the insured motor vehicle.

Furthermore, the only fact in the case of New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Karl Goldstein,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. GoldsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API