Legal Opinion

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. George

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided November 26, 1996No. 95-P-839PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.

The primary question in this appeal by the Georges is whether certain discharges of pollutants fell within the “sudden and accidental” exception to the pollution exclusion clause in their insurance policies. If so, the Georges’ insurers would have a duty to defend the Georges in actions brought against them by the United States and the Commonwealth. A Superior Court judge entered summary judgment for the insurers declaring: (1) that none of them had an obligation to defend and indemnify the Georges in actions brought in 1985 by the United States and the Commonwealth against the Georges for…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Boston, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  3. Technicon Electronics Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  5. Polaroid Corp. v. the Travelers Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Continental Insurance v. BahnanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
  3. Ferrara & DiMercurio, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
  4. House of Clean, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
  5. Narragansett Electric Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2013

5 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