Noseworthy v. Allstate Life Insurance
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Bohaker v. Travelers InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Commonwealth v. LykusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Murray v. Continental InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Miles v. Edward O. Tabor, M.D., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Hanover Insurance v. TalhouniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- MetLife Auto & Home v. CunninghamMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
- Manganella v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
- Metivier v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1999
- Blake v. SOUTHCOAST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
- Riccio v. HorwitzMassachusetts Superior Court · 2004