Legal Opinion · Dissent

Butterfield v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 30, 2004Published

1Dissent

CLIFFORD, J.,

with whom ALEXANDER, J., joins, dissenting.

[¶21] Without the policy provision at issue in this case, Norfolk & Dedham could not accurately address the risk to which it is exposed in the uninsured motorist part of its policy, and on which it could base a reasonable premium. That provision limits the risks arising from injuries to a determinable number of persons, i.e. the named insureds under the policy and resident family members of the named insureds, and protects the insurer from risks that are unascertainable. In my view, the provision is reasonable, comports with our…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. WiscombWashington Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Wescott v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  3. Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. DeLaGarzaMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Brackett v. Middlesex InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985

11 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