Legal Opinion

Noseworthy v. Allstate Life Insurance

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 29, 1996No. 93-P-1580PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Jury instruction. In the face of conflicting requests for jury instruc*925tians, the trial judge charged the jury as to the exclusionaiy clause thus: “Now, the policy excludes from coverage any form of self-destruction, purposeful or otherwise. For example, if this is a suicide, that is, if this is a purposeful or intentional taking of one’s own life, there is no coverage under the policy. Even if you find that this were a taking of one’s own life in a frenzy caused by psychological disturbance, as long as the result is that the person destroyed his own life, there is, again, no coverage.” The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Bohaker v. Travelers InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  2. Commonwealth v. LykusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  3. Murray v. Continental InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  4. Miles v. Edward O. Tabor, M.D., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  5. Hanover Insurance v. TalhouniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. MetLife Auto & Home v. CunninghamMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
  2. Manganella v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
  3. Metivier v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1999
  4. Blake v. SOUTHCOAST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
  5. Riccio v. HorwitzMassachusetts Superior Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API