Legal Opinion

St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance v. Feingold & Feingold Insurance Agency, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 4, 1998PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wilkins, CJ.

In 1990, the third-party plaintiff (St. Paul) issued a policy of liquor liability insurance to Chopsticks Restaurant of Leominster, Inc. (Chopsticks). St. Paul reasonably relied on information in an application for insurance signed by the president of Chopsticks and prepared by the defendant (Feingold), an independent insurance broker acting for Chopsticks.

The application contained materially false information. If the true facts had been disclosed to St. Paul, it would not have issued the policy. Among the false information on the application were the following statements: (1)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Datacomm Interface, Inc. v. Computerworld, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  2. Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  3. Conway v. Electro Switch Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
  4. Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. CramptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  5. Kozdras v. Land/Vest Properties, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Kattar v. DemoulasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  2. Bank v. Thermo Elemental Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  3. Century Surety Co. v. Crosby InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Correa v. SchoeckMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
  5. General Electric Co. Business Lighting Group v. Halmar Distributors, Inc. (In Re Halmar Distributors, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999

17 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