Legal Opinion

Piechuck v. Magusiak

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 7, 1926PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.

The authorities are practically unanimous in holding that a plaintiff will not be permitted to show, as an independent fact, that the defendant is insured against the liability the plaintiff seeks to establish. Demars v. Company, 67 N. H. 404; Sawyer v. Company, 90 Me. 369; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507; Manley v. Company, 76 Minn. 169; Kerr v. Company, 155 Mich. 191.

Indemnity insurance is now very generally carried, and the fact is; matter of common knowledge. By the improper use of such knowledge, a jury might infer, in the absence of evidence upon the question, that the defendant was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cosselmon v. . DunfeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Sawyer v. J. M. Arnold Shoe Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1897
  3. Kerr v. National Fulton Brass Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Manley v. Minneapolis Paint Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Rojas v. VuocoloTexas Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Graham v. WristonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Haid v. LoderstedtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  4. Amabello v. Colonial MotorsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  5. King v. StarrWashington Supreme Court · 1953

24 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