Legal Opinion
Tateosian v. State
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided December 21, 2007No. 2005-574PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.
¶ 1. In this contractual duty-to-defend case, both parties — third-party plaintiff, the State of Vermont, and third-party defendant, Vermont Municipal Truck Equipment & Supplies, Inc. (VMT) — appeal the judgment of the superior court. In relevant part, the court concluded that VMT had a limited duty to defend the State and awarded the State $5430 in attorney’s fees. On appeal, the State argues that the court erred by: (1) concluding that VMT’s duty to defend terminated after only several months of litigation; (2) limiting VMT’s duty to defend to only one of the claims against the State; and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. SeckingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Goldman v. Ecco-Phoenix Electric Corp.California Supreme Court · 1964
- City of Burlington v. National Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
- Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Properties Corp.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1997
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Crosetti Bros.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Stamp Tech, Inc. v. Lydall/Thermal Acoustical, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- Southwick v. City of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
- Wallace v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Specialized Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. Prison Health Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.