Legal Opinion

Kraul v. MAINE BONDING & CASUALTY COMPANY

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided May 25, 1989PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HORNBY, Justice.

The Superior Court (Cumberland County, Wernick, A.R.J.) granted summary judgment to the insurance company in this reach and apply action and denied a motion to amend the complaint to include “waiver” as a rationale of recovery. We affirm.

In this occurrence-type liability and completed operations policy, the policy language clearly provides that the insurance company will pay for bodily injury only where it “occurs during the policy period.” Although the insured’s alleged negligence occurred during the policy period, the bodily injury in question occurred after the policy…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Northeast Insurance v. Concord General Mutual InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Baywood Corp. v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993
  2. Carter v. CarterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1992
  3. In re Checking Account Overdraft LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2012
  4. Kraul v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  5. Kraul v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1991

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