Legal Opinion

TBH by and Through Howard v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 10, 1998No. 97-299PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSkoglund, J.

Intervenor Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals a decision of the Orange Superior Court, which granted defendant Dr. Samuel Meyer’s motion for summary judgment and held that he was entitled to insurance coverage in this civil suit. Prudential argues that the court erred because Prudential is not required to defend or indemnify defendant for his nonphysical sexual exploitation of a minor based on Vermont’s inferred intent rule and the liability insurance policies’ exclusionary clauses. We agree and reverse the summary judgment for defendant and grant Prudential’s summary…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Titan Holdings Syndicate, Inc. v. The City of Keene, New HampshireCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  2. B.B. v. Continental Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
  3. Aetna Life and Casualty Company v. Carolyn Barthelemy Peter M. Barthelemy Michael Barthelemy Vicki McSparran Vicki McSparranCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  4. State v. SearlesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  5. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. OuelletteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Northern Security Insurance v. PerronSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  2. Dalmer v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  3. DeSantis v. PeguesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  4. Serecky v. National Grange Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
  5. City of Burlington v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2000

13 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