Legal Opinion

Hanover Insurance v. Locke

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided December 28, 1993No. 92-P-1586PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.

The insurer sought a declaration that Stephen Locke, who allegedly killed James M. Maloney in a hit and run accident while driving his father’s automobile, was not covered by his father’s insurance policy. The reason for no coverage, in the view of the insurer, is that both the compulsory and the optional parts of the policy provide coverage only if a person is operating the vehicle with the consent of the vehicle’s owner.

A judge of the Superior Court found that Stephen, at the time of the accident, did not have the express or implied consent of either of his parents to drive the car. Under…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Royal-Globe Insurance v. CravenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
  2. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. KubikAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  3. Commerce Insurance v. KochMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
  4. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. SullivanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  5. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1985

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. CERTAIN INTERESTED UNDERWRITERS v. StolbergCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
  2. Hartford Insurance v. HaltAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  3. Allstate Insurance Co. v. PruettHawaii Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Close v. EbertzNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Picard v. ThomasMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004

9 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