Legal Opinion

Whitten v. Concord General Mutual Insurance

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 23, 1994PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GLASSMAN, Justice.

This matter comes to us on a report, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 72(e). 1 The defendants, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and Concord General Mutual Insurance Company (Concord) contend that the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) erred by granting the motion of the plaintiffs, Kathleen A. Whitten and Alan E. Whitten, to strike the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations from the answers filed by the defendants to the Whittens’ complaint and by denying the defendants’ motions for a summary judgment in their favor. We vacate the order.

I…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Scovill Manufacturing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  2. Liberty Transport, Inc. v. Harry W. Gorst Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. Langevin v. City of BiddefordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
  4. Palmero v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
  5. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. DaigleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hamm v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  2. Berkshire Mutual Insurance v. BurbankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
  3. McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Wille v. Geico Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2000
  5. Grayson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1999

4 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