Legal Opinion

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Poirier

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 1, 1976PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.

The sole question on this appeal is whether an insurer is obliged to provide benefits under its “uninsured motorists coverage” (Coverage U) to an insured who, without the insurer’s consent, has settled a claim against a third party whose vehicle was involved in the accident which resulted in the insured’s bodily injury. We conclude that under the terms of the applicable motor vehicle insurance policy the insurer had no obligation to provide Coverage U benefits in the circumstances and that the policy provisions do not violate statutory requirements.

The husband of the defendant administratrix…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Employers' Fire Insurance v. GarneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
  2. Tuthill v. State Farm InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1974
  3. Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Royal Indemnity Co. v. BlakelyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Wescott v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  3. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. MacInnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
  5. Spaneas v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996

22 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