Butterfield v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
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
- Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. WiscombWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Wescott v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Eurick v. Pemco Insurance Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1987
- Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. DeLaGarzaMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
- Brackett v. Middlesex InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.