Legal Opinion
Hurtig v. Terminix Wood Treating & Contracting Co.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Decided December 21, 1984No. 9521PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
HAYASHI, J.
Petitioners, Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Company, Limited and United National Insurance Company Limited (Insurers) filed for a writ of certiorari claiming error by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. We granted certiorari.
Defendant, Terminix Wood Treating & Contracting Co., Ltd. (Terminix) entered into a contract for the inspection and treatment for termites of the home owned by plaintiffs, Bernard and Helen Hurtig (Hurtigs). Some time after Terminix finished the treat*481ment, the Hurtigs sued Terminix claiming that it failed to correctly perform the contract…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haugan v. Home Indemnity CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Sturla, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceHawaii Supreme Court · 1984
3Cited by14 opinions
- Isle of Palms Pest Control Co. v. Monticello InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. FermahinHawaii Supreme Court · 1992
- Orada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1985
- Okada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. RatliffMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.