Legal Opinion

John T. Callahan & Sons, Inc. v. Worcester Insurance

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 19, 2009PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotsford, J.

It is well settled that an insured is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in successfully establishing the insurer’s duty to defend under the terms of the policy. See Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gamache, 426 Mass. 93, 98 (1997) (Gamache). What happens when the party incurring attorney’s fees and expenses to establish the insurer’s obligation to defend is not the insured but a different insurer that has defended and provided coverage to the insured? That is the question raised in this case. We answer that the exception to the American Rule in Gamache and its…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Preferred Mutual Insurance v. GamacheMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  2. Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
  3. Mission Insurance v. United States Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
  4. Wilkinson v. Citation InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
  5. Hanover Insurance v. GoldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hermanson v. SzafarowiczMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
  2. Jones v. BoykanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
  3. K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. ProskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  4. Styller v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2019
  5. Associated Industries of Massachusetts Mutual Insurance v. HoughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013

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