Gibbs v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
If the plaintiff may charge the defendant with conducting the defence of the action, the issue of coverage may not now be litigated. The defendant as insurer had no interest to defend unless there was coverage, and this was a preliminary question to be determined. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Garage, 86 N. H. 362, and cases cited. If held to have been represented by the defending attorneys in the trial, its “binding acknowledgment” of coverage would appear to follow. When the action went to trial, it knew the facts upon which its position against coverage stood. If it defended, it did so…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sauriolle v. O'GormanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Davison v. ParksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
- Wilson v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- American Motorists Insurance v. Central GarageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Edelstone v. Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
3Cited by4 opinions
- Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. KennettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. LougeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
- Putnam v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
- Kobilsek v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1949