Legal Opinion

Cannon v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 25, 1994No. 93-115PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

These declaratory judgment actions, involving issues of automobile insurance coverage, arose after David Castles assaulted James Cannon on Interstate 93. Castles had been driving his employer’s car, which was insured by Universal Underwriters Group (Universal Underwriters), while Cannon had been driving his own car, insured by Maine Bonding & Casualty Company (Maine Bonding). The Superior Court (Hollman, J.) ruled that Cannon’s injuries did not arise out of any use of Castles’ employer’s car and, therefore, that Universal Underwriters is not obligated to provide Castles with liability…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Continental Western Insurance Co. v. KlugSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  2. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. HigginbothamMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. HowserSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  5. Carter v. BergeronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1960

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  2. United National Insurance v. Penuche's, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
  3. Roque v. Allstate Insurance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. Pro Con Construction, Inc. v. Acadia InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
  5. Cole v. United Services Automobile Ass'nColorado Court of Appeals · 2002

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