Legal Opinion

Burgess Farms v. New Hampshire Insurance Group

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided June 20, 1985No. 14803, 14804PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWANSTROM, Judge.

Burgess Farms brought this suit to recover from New Hampshire Insurance Group (hereinafter “New Hampshire”) under a policy which covered, among other perils, vandalism and malicious mischief. New Hampshire contended that because Burgess Farms could not prove the destruction of its property was willful and malicious the loss was not covered. In the alternative, Burgess Farms sought recovery from the Taber-McDonald Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter “Taber-McDonald”) and Greg McDonald, who procured the policy from New Hampshire for Burgess Farms. The gist of this cause of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Anderson v. EthingtonIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Graham v. Public Employees Mutual InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Abbie Uriguen Oldsmobile Buick, Inc. v. United States Fire InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Hatley v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. TrautweinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1967

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. RobertsIdaho Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Ranger Insurance v. Globe Seed & Feed Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  3. McGilvray v. Farmers New World Life InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Wells v. United States Life InsuranceIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Ditloff v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1987

6 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