Legal Opinion

Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Madore

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 1, 2005No. 04-291PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

¶ 1. Plaintiff Concord General Mutual Insurance Company brings this declaratory judgment action claiming that it does not owe its insureds a duty to defend or indemnify them in an underlying tort suit arising from minor-on-minor sexual molestation. Plaintiff moved for and was granted judgment against all parties to the underlying tort suit on grounds that the homeowners’ policy at issue expressly excluded from coverage personal liability arising out of the sexual molestation of any person, whether intentional or unintentional. On appeal, defendants argue that the court impermissibly resolved…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Northern Security Insurance v. PerronSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  2. Hardwick Recycling & Salvage, Inc. v. Acadia InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  3. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. CNA InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  4. Jerald D. v. Concord Group InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Blake v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
  2. Towns v. Northern Security InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  3. Southwick v. City of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  4. Knelman v. Middlebury CollegeDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2012
  5. McAlister v. Vermont Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'nSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006

10 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