Legal Opinion
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Cotter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 2013PublishedCited by 85 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLenk, J.
After paying disability benefits to the defendant, James M. Cotter, for several years, the plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), determined that Cotter had failed to satisfy a clause in his “own occupation” disability *624insurance policy that required him to receive care by a physician that “is appropriate for the condition causing the disability.”1 Interpreting this clause as requiring Cotter to pursue treatment aimed at returning him to his prior occupation, MetLife advised Cotter that the care he was receiving was not appropriate because it expressly disavowed a return to…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Offices Unlimited, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- Salamon v. TerraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Olson v. Major League BaseballCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2022
- Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
- Brown v. United Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
- AIG Property Casualty Co. v. CosbyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018
- Guldseth v. Family Medicine Associates LLCCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2022
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.