Legal Opinion

Mailhiot v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 27, 1999No. 98-357PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

This case raises the issue of whether, when indemnification is sought from an insurance company, the fact that a plaintiff has claimed two distinct theories of recovery is sufficient to invoke the concurrent causation doctrine adopted in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Roberts, 166 Vt. 452, 697 A.2d 667 (1997), thus allowing for recovery under a policy despite the fact that one of the causes of the accident was an excluded risk. We conclude that the pleading of distinct theories of recovery does not establish concurrent causation, and therefore affirm.

Plaintiffs Joseph Mailhiot,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Northern Assurance Co. of America v. EDP Floors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  3. Salem Group v. OliverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  4. Garneau v. Curtis & Bedell, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1992
  5. Sanders v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1987

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Northern Security Insurance v. PerronSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  2. Sperling v. Allstate Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  3. Proselect Insurance v. LevySupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  4. Sperling v. Allstate Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  5. Allstate Indemnity Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

5 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