Legal Opinion
Sintros v. Hamon
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided October 29, 2002No. 2001-594PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrock, C.J.
The plaintiffs, Michael and Thomas Sintros, appeal from an order of the Superior Court (Mangones, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendants, Thomas Hamon and Horace Mann Insurance Companies (Horace Mann). We affirm.
Considering the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the relevant facts follow. Thomas Sintros purchased automobile insurance *479from Horace Mann through its agent, Hamon. Michael Sintros, Thomas’ son, was named as an insured under his father’s policy. Horace Mann provided automobile insurance to the Sintros family for at least seven years. Over that time…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Murphy v. KuhnNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Simpson v. CalivasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Nelson v. DavidsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1990
- Harts v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Hardt v. BrinkDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1961
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Mladineo v. SchmidtMississippi Supreme Court · 2010
- Mikell v. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT NO. 33Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2009
- Furbush v. McKittrickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
- Estate of Joshua T. v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
- Jacobs v. Director, N.H. Division of Motor VehiclesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2003
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.