Legal Opinion

American Motorists Insurance v. Kopka

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 2, 1936PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

Although the question transferred by the superior court is stated in restricted form and has specific reference only to the meaning of the term “bodily injuries,” the apparent intent was to transfer the question whether the claim of the defendant John Kopka, Sr. comes within the coverage of the policy. The case has been argued and considered upon the assumption that this was its true intent and purpose. The answer hardly admits of doubt.

If John Kopka, Jr. had been of age and had himself incurred the expenses which constitute the basis of his father’s suit, his right to claim reimbursement…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cormier v. HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  2. Williams v. NelsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Antichi v. New York Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Franklin v. Georgia Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Nuzzi v. United States Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1938
  2. Diamond International Corporation v. Allstate Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
  3. Burstein v. United States Lines Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ShrigleyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1939
  5. Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. CampIndiana Court of Appeals · 1941

2 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